Obama decrees amnesty for young illegals

President Obama, not by Congressional lawmaking but by executive order, announced that illegal aliens whose parents brought them here would no longer face deportation:

The Obama administration announced Friday it will stop deporting illegal immigrants who come to the country at a young age. . . .

The change in policy could allow as many as 800,000 immigrants who came to the United States illegally not only to remain in the country without fear of being deported, but to work legally, according to a senior administration official speaking to reporters Friday. . . .

The new policy will not grant citizenship to children who came to the United States as illegal immigrants, but will remove the threat of deportation and grant them the right to work in the United States.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, the policy change will apply to those who came to the United States before they were 16 and who are younger than 30 if they have lived here for five years, have no criminal history, graduated from a U.S. high school or served in the military.

Wrong. Just as wrong when Bush pushed for illegal immigration-friendly stuff in his term.

I don’t care which side does it; there are rules involved with coming to this country. If you want to come here, you come by the rules. Just like if you were to come into my house, you come at MY invitation and you come through the front door, not a side window.

Wrong. Just as wrong when Bush pushed for illegal immigration-friendly stuff in his term.

I don’t care which side does it; there are rules involved with coming to this country. If you want to come here, you come by the rules. Just like if you were to come into my house, you come at MY invitation and you come through the front door, not a side window.

Kirk

@J.Dean

But the rules are completely and utterly absurd and out-dated. Saying a law is worth enforcing simply because it’s a law and taking no regard for that law’s efficacy is the definition of pig headed conservatism. Sadly, it’s been the mantra of the Republican Party when it comes to immigration policy.

Here’s the deal: immigrants will come. As long as life in the US is better than in Central America, they will come. And why not let them if they’re genuinely interested in coming here and making a life? And while we’re at it, why not create a system in which they can come to our country and contribute to it through taxes? Why not take some of the pressure of our border guards and give them leave to stop hard drugs from coming into the US instead of asking them to deport families seeking a better life? “Because we have an existing immigration law” doesn’t seem like a particularly good reason to me. Change the law. Make it make sense. That’s what needs to be done and, I think, that’s what Obama’s doing here.

Sadly, I don’t think it’s Obama’s place to do it. I’m pretty sure his order here is not illegal, but this sort of policy should be coming from the legislature, not from a unilateral source.

Kirk

@J.Dean

But the rules are completely and utterly absurd and out-dated. Saying a law is worth enforcing simply because it’s a law and taking no regard for that law’s efficacy is the definition of pig headed conservatism. Sadly, it’s been the mantra of the Republican Party when it comes to immigration policy.

Here’s the deal: immigrants will come. As long as life in the US is better than in Central America, they will come. And why not let them if they’re genuinely interested in coming here and making a life? And while we’re at it, why not create a system in which they can come to our country and contribute to it through taxes? Why not take some of the pressure of our border guards and give them leave to stop hard drugs from coming into the US instead of asking them to deport families seeking a better life? “Because we have an existing immigration law” doesn’t seem like a particularly good reason to me. Change the law. Make it make sense. That’s what needs to be done and, I think, that’s what Obama’s doing here.

Sadly, I don’t think it’s Obama’s place to do it. I’m pretty sure his order here is not illegal, but this sort of policy should be coming from the legislature, not from a unilateral source.

where are the SPINE-LESS Rs?!
rhetorical question- no need to answer-
C-CS

Kirk

@4 What are “SPINE-LESS Rs”?

Kirk

@4 What are “SPINE-LESS Rs”?

rlewer

Obama has taken upon himself to decide which laws to enforce and what new laws (regulations) to make up. For a supposed constitutional law professor, he would know better.

However, we truly need to streamline the legal ways of coming into the country and the red tape surrounding it. Any process involving local Mexican government input will be totally corrupt. In my experience of living along the border in a farm family, anyone with a green card from Mexico has had to pay a bribe to get it.

rlewer

Obama has taken upon himself to decide which laws to enforce and what new laws (regulations) to make up. For a supposed constitutional law professor, he would know better.

However, we truly need to streamline the legal ways of coming into the country and the red tape surrounding it. Any process involving local Mexican government input will be totally corrupt. In my experience of living along the border in a farm family, anyone with a green card from Mexico has had to pay a bribe to get it.

“I don’t think it’s Obama’s place to do it. I’m pretty sure his order here is not illegal, but this sort of policy should be coming from the legislature, not from a unilateral source.”

Illegal immigration does not have support of the voters. Increased immigration does not have the support of the voters. That is why the Congress can’t pass these kinds of laws. They will not be reelected if they do.

As long as life in the US is better than in Central America, they will come.

So, how long will that be? Do you think that things will ever get better down there considering that the people who live there are either unwilling or unable to improve their own situation? And how do we benefit from immigration of people who are unwilling and unable to effect positive change on their own?

Life is better here for many of those who come here only because of all the free stuff they get when they get here. They don’t earn enough to pay market rates for anything they use, especially health care. We already have historic low labor participation rates. We have plenty of people to do all that need be done.

“I don’t think it’s Obama’s place to do it. I’m pretty sure his order here is not illegal, but this sort of policy should be coming from the legislature, not from a unilateral source.”

Illegal immigration does not have support of the voters. Increased immigration does not have the support of the voters. That is why the Congress can’t pass these kinds of laws. They will not be reelected if they do.

As long as life in the US is better than in Central America, they will come.

So, how long will that be? Do you think that things will ever get better down there considering that the people who live there are either unwilling or unable to improve their own situation? And how do we benefit from immigration of people who are unwilling and unable to effect positive change on their own?

Life is better here for many of those who come here only because of all the free stuff they get when they get here. They don’t earn enough to pay market rates for anything they use, especially health care. We already have historic low labor participation rates. We have plenty of people to do all that need be done.

ClassyInGA

I imagine that if more of us had personal relationships with illegal immigrants and their families, we would be less hesitant to treat them inhospitably.

Obama’s modus operandi is dangerous (yet predictable). But Republicans seem to be ignoring the obvious question of the illegals’ children’s guilt with regard to the law. There must be a mechanism for allowing them to obtain citizenship and enter the federal tax system, or an alternative tax system needs to replace what we have now.

ClassyInGA

I imagine that if more of us had personal relationships with illegal immigrants and their families, we would be less hesitant to treat them inhospitably.

Obama’s modus operandi is dangerous (yet predictable). But Republicans seem to be ignoring the obvious question of the illegals’ children’s guilt with regard to the law. There must be a mechanism for allowing them to obtain citizenship and enter the federal tax system, or an alternative tax system needs to replace what we have now.

ClassyInGA

* more hesitant

ClassyInGA

* more hesitant

Grace

Good points @10, sg – I agree.

Grace

Good points @10, sg – I agree.

Susan

It looks like another attempt by Obama to change the subject from the economy to something controversial. Last time it was same-sex marriage. And another attempt to throw Romney off message. I’ve read that what Obama has proposed looks like it was taken from Rubio’s plan and bordered plagiarism. His press speech said his executive order was temporary stop gap measure and declared that (in quotes marks) “congress needed to act to approve the DREAM act.” He said it was “NOT amnesty, not immunity, not a path to citizenship, and not a permanent fix,” and that it was the “right thing to do.” No plan, just bullying.

It also looks like he is trying to attract the Hispanic vote. It seems cruel to give naive illegal Hispanics false hopes and add more youth to the already high youth unemployment numbers among those who are citizens. It seems calculating to ignite La Raza radicals into action and attract more illegals to come in and try to be here to benefit from his order. It seems tone-deaf to the large number of Hispanic citizens who have legitimate concerns about the illegals and the high crime rates that have accompanied them. Many remember the problems caused by Reagan’s amnesty. What a disaster. I hate to think what he will try next when the dust settles on this controversy.

Let’s not even mention all of the nation security leaks to make Obama look good and the international and national fall-out from his administration’s loose lips.

Susan

It looks like another attempt by Obama to change the subject from the economy to something controversial. Last time it was same-sex marriage. And another attempt to throw Romney off message. I’ve read that what Obama has proposed looks like it was taken from Rubio’s plan and bordered plagiarism. His press speech said his executive order was temporary stop gap measure and declared that (in quotes marks) “congress needed to act to approve the DREAM act.” He said it was “NOT amnesty, not immunity, not a path to citizenship, and not a permanent fix,” and that it was the “right thing to do.” No plan, just bullying.

It also looks like he is trying to attract the Hispanic vote. It seems cruel to give naive illegal Hispanics false hopes and add more youth to the already high youth unemployment numbers among those who are citizens. It seems calculating to ignite La Raza radicals into action and attract more illegals to come in and try to be here to benefit from his order. It seems tone-deaf to the large number of Hispanic citizens who have legitimate concerns about the illegals and the high crime rates that have accompanied them. Many remember the problems caused by Reagan’s amnesty. What a disaster. I hate to think what he will try next when the dust settles on this controversy.

Let’s not even mention all of the nation security leaks to make Obama look good and the international and national fall-out from his administration’s loose lips.

Jon

God bless the president for signing this. It’s a humane, practical, compassionate solution to a major problem that the GOP simply will not address legislatively. God bless him.

Jon

God bless the president for signing this. It’s a humane, practical, compassionate solution to a major problem that the GOP simply will not address legislatively. God bless him.

Grace

ClassyInGA @11

YOU WROTE: I imagine that if more of us had personal relationships with illegal immigrants and their families, we would be less hesitant to treat them inhospitably.”

I live in Southern CA. We have a LARGE number of illegal aliens. My husband and I know many, be they llegal or illegal.

One of the problems you overlook is; those who are illegal, have no respect for our laws. Not just immigration, but many others.

Breaking the law does not promote “hospitably” – instead it makes those of us who are citizens distrustful of those who break, and continue to lie and cheat.

Drugs are a massive problem – the prisons are full of illegals who use this as their trade.

False identification, changing their names, using false addresses, etc., are not conducive to trust. As for their children, that is the illegals problem. Children born here from illegal parents are innocent, but they are still the children of those who lie and break our laws. The children as they get older learn from their parents, it becomes a way of life.

We as a country cannot make available health insurance, education, welfare, free lunches and breakfasts for all the children of illegal aliens. Our schools cannot do a proper job of educating when half the class cannot speak English. Please don’t suggest that the teacher speak Spanish, or that extra classes be provided, we cannot afford it.

Do you live in the United States? – do you live in an area, highly populated by illegal aliens? – if so do you help them financially?

Grace

ClassyInGA @11

YOU WROTE: I imagine that if more of us had personal relationships with illegal immigrants and their families, we would be less hesitant to treat them inhospitably.”

I live in Southern CA. We have a LARGE number of illegal aliens. My husband and I know many, be they llegal or illegal.

One of the problems you overlook is; those who are illegal, have no respect for our laws. Not just immigration, but many others.

Breaking the law does not promote “hospitably” – instead it makes those of us who are citizens distrustful of those who break, and continue to lie and cheat.

Drugs are a massive problem – the prisons are full of illegals who use this as their trade.

False identification, changing their names, using false addresses, etc., are not conducive to trust. As for their children, that is the illegals problem. Children born here from illegal parents are innocent, but they are still the children of those who lie and break our laws. The children as they get older learn from their parents, it becomes a way of life.

We as a country cannot make available health insurance, education, welfare, free lunches and breakfasts for all the children of illegal aliens. Our schools cannot do a proper job of educating when half the class cannot speak English. Please don’t suggest that the teacher speak Spanish, or that extra classes be provided, we cannot afford it.

Do you live in the United States? – do you live in an area, highly populated by illegal aliens? – if so do you help them financially?

SKPeterson

So, people come here to work and bring their children. They work long hours at relatively low wages doing things “plenty of people to do all that need be done” won’t done do (as we say in the South). They’ll be given work permits and pay taxes.

If you want Americans to do these jobs and you’re concerned about Mexicans taking advantage of “the system” it is very simple to address if the majority of voters are supposedly against immigration: 1) eliminate the minimum wage, 2) eliminate WIC/food stamps, reduce the eligible time on welfare to 3 months, and eliminate Medicaid. But what many Americans want can be reduced to two groups: 1) those who don’t really want to work and want to live off “the system” and 2) those who want lots of cheap Mexican labor to do the work those in group 1) refuse to do because they have precious little incentive to do it.

Right now I would argue that we need lots more illegal Mexican immigrants coming in to the U.S. to work, so that they can contribute to our economy and pay some taxes to defray the tax and debt burden imposed on working Americans by our non-working fellow citizens.

SKPeterson

So, people come here to work and bring their children. They work long hours at relatively low wages doing things “plenty of people to do all that need be done” won’t done do (as we say in the South). They’ll be given work permits and pay taxes.

If you want Americans to do these jobs and you’re concerned about Mexicans taking advantage of “the system” it is very simple to address if the majority of voters are supposedly against immigration: 1) eliminate the minimum wage, 2) eliminate WIC/food stamps, reduce the eligible time on welfare to 3 months, and eliminate Medicaid. But what many Americans want can be reduced to two groups: 1) those who don’t really want to work and want to live off “the system” and 2) those who want lots of cheap Mexican labor to do the work those in group 1) refuse to do because they have precious little incentive to do it.

Right now I would argue that we need lots more illegal Mexican immigrants coming in to the U.S. to work, so that they can contribute to our economy and pay some taxes to defray the tax and debt burden imposed on working Americans by our non-working fellow citizens.

Bob

Jon #15
+1

Must be tough for all you hard-core righties on here to hear this from Barack Obama, President of the United States of America, on a Friday.

Gives you the whole weekend to seethe.

Bob

Jon #15
+1

Must be tough for all you hard-core righties on here to hear this from Barack Obama, President of the United States of America, on a Friday.

Gives you the whole weekend to seethe.

BW

Grace @ 16,

What do you suggest we do with children of illegal immigrants born in this country? They are already citizens of this county.

BW

Grace @ 16,

What do you suggest we do with children of illegal immigrants born in this country? They are already citizens of this county.

Grace

BW @ 19

That’s a question I have asked myself many times.

In many cases the parent/parents are sent back below the border. A legal relative is then allowed to raise the child.

BW, parents who are illegal aliens, are well aware of cheating, lying and breaking our laws. Their children witness their parents behavior, they emulate it often times, and defend the reasons for doing so. In essence it’s handed down from one generation to another.

The children do pay a price, but don’t all children who’s parents have broken the law, and are brought to justice, going to prison for a specified time. In this case, the parents can be sent back to their country of origin, waiting like everyone else (in line) to come to the U.S., a relative can care for the children who are legal. It’s no different than a citizen being sent to prison for a crime. It’s against the law to come here illegally.

At this time we have millions in California alone who are illegal, and care less that they break the law.

In many of the cities in Southern CA it is against the law for anyone to use any sort of construction, landscaping on Sunday, and on any other day, the law states one must stop work at nightfall. There are those who continue to work, no matter the hour, the noise and machinery used.

Sunday is no different, they come and work, not caring one ding how much noise they make, or that they disrupt everyones life in doing so. The police are almost ALWAYS called, and the work stopped. Officers standing in the street, waiting to see if they are packing up, or pretending to. When the workmen leave, the police leave. It’s the only way in which most of our communities can end the noise, machinery, endless trucks of all types parked, not allowing any of the residents guest to park.

Grace

BW @ 19

That’s a question I have asked myself many times.

In many cases the parent/parents are sent back below the border. A legal relative is then allowed to raise the child.

BW, parents who are illegal aliens, are well aware of cheating, lying and breaking our laws. Their children witness their parents behavior, they emulate it often times, and defend the reasons for doing so. In essence it’s handed down from one generation to another.

The children do pay a price, but don’t all children who’s parents have broken the law, and are brought to justice, going to prison for a specified time. In this case, the parents can be sent back to their country of origin, waiting like everyone else (in line) to come to the U.S., a relative can care for the children who are legal. It’s no different than a citizen being sent to prison for a crime. It’s against the law to come here illegally.

At this time we have millions in California alone who are illegal, and care less that they break the law.

In many of the cities in Southern CA it is against the law for anyone to use any sort of construction, landscaping on Sunday, and on any other day, the law states one must stop work at nightfall. There are those who continue to work, no matter the hour, the noise and machinery used.

Sunday is no different, they come and work, not caring one ding how much noise they make, or that they disrupt everyones life in doing so. The police are almost ALWAYS called, and the work stopped. Officers standing in the street, waiting to see if they are packing up, or pretending to. When the workmen leave, the police leave. It’s the only way in which most of our communities can end the noise, machinery, endless trucks of all types parked, not allowing any of the residents guest to park.

“What do you suggest we do with children of illegal immigrants born in this country? They are already citizens of this county.”

Deport them along with their parents (unless parents make other arrangements and provide for their children’s support). If citizens of other countries can live here, then US citizens can live in other countries.

There is nothing immoral, or cruel and unusual about deporting people back to their home countries. There is nothing inhumane about sending them home to the societies they created so they can enjoy the fruits of their own labors there.

“What do you suggest we do with children of illegal immigrants born in this country? They are already citizens of this county.”

Deport them along with their parents (unless parents make other arrangements and provide for their children’s support). If citizens of other countries can live here, then US citizens can live in other countries.

There is nothing immoral, or cruel and unusual about deporting people back to their home countries. There is nothing inhumane about sending them home to the societies they created so they can enjoy the fruits of their own labors there.

When are we going to call on all these nations to do better for their own people? What is curiously absent from all these discussions is any criticism of the countries that people want to leave. So if these places are so bad that some here think it is “inhumane” to expect people to live there (bizarre) why not publicly shame them for their poor administration? What not have the UN sanction them or some such? Why do we so want to blame those who don’t cause the problems? But can’t bring ourselves to criticize those who do cause the problems?

When are we going to call on all these nations to do better for their own people? What is curiously absent from all these discussions is any criticism of the countries that people want to leave. So if these places are so bad that some here think it is “inhumane” to expect people to live there (bizarre) why not publicly shame them for their poor administration? What not have the UN sanction them or some such? Why do we so want to blame those who don’t cause the problems? But can’t bring ourselves to criticize those who do cause the problems?

SKPeterson

sg @ 24 – Why should welcoming immigrants be mutually exclusive of decrying the governments people are seeking to get away from? And what per se is wrong with immigration? You seem to view it always as a net negative. It isn’t. Never has been, never will be. Being somewhat Republican (from the anarchist wing) or the Bourbon wing of the Democrats (the last good Dem president was Cleveland), I find the anti-immigrant biases of both parties (and they both have them in spades) to be flat out ridiculous and inimical to our highest national ideals of valuing life, liberty and property. Don’t give me the law and order guff, either. We have plenty of domestic scofflaws but we don’t usually dismiss an entire group of people based on the actions of individuals. Criminality doesn’t care much for artificial lines drawn on maps.

SKPeterson

sg @ 24 – Why should welcoming immigrants be mutually exclusive of decrying the governments people are seeking to get away from? And what per se is wrong with immigration? You seem to view it always as a net negative. It isn’t. Never has been, never will be. Being somewhat Republican (from the anarchist wing) or the Bourbon wing of the Democrats (the last good Dem president was Cleveland), I find the anti-immigrant biases of both parties (and they both have them in spades) to be flat out ridiculous and inimical to our highest national ideals of valuing life, liberty and property. Don’t give me the law and order guff, either. We have plenty of domestic scofflaws but we don’t usually dismiss an entire group of people based on the actions of individuals. Criminality doesn’t care much for artificial lines drawn on maps.

Susan

Grace,

It’s seems hard for those who do not live in state greatly affected by illegal immigration to understand the problems. I grew up in California and Colorado, lived most of my life in Colorado, and now live in Texas. It’s seems some are brainwashed by the liberal tripe that says illegals only do work others do not want to do. think the majority are law-abiding (except for being illegal and working illegally) and do not understand the damage done to the local economies (especially the construction and landscape industries). They also fail to understand the proud Hispanic families who have been American citizens for 5 or more generations and hate the destruction done by the illegals. They fail to understand the problems of the towns and cities along the Mexican drug routes, the drug gang wars, and the way it raises the crime rates because of the violence and theft. They fail to understand the squalor they cause when they rent a place for a family of 4 and put 20-25 people in it. Or how that section of a town falls into squalor. It’s too easy for wanna-be pundits to declare Obama’s latest nose-thumb at congress and disregard for the law good. They don’t understand the issues nor have they learned anything from Reagan’s amnesty.

Victor Davis Hanson, a classist professor, fellow at the Hoover Institute, and a 5th generation raisin farmer in California’s Central Valley has written much about the problems with compassion. I wish more people would read and learn the truth about illegal immigration instead of swallowing liberal victimology. Let the liberals experience living in the midst of numerous illegals and experience problems like they have in Selma and other places. It’s not a lack of compassion on the part of conservative types. It’s a need to deal with reality and a need for the old tradition of assimilation of new immigrants. Here’s a short clip of an interview with VDH that you may appreciate:

But then again, it’s not compassionate to tell the truth and we must be racists even though some of our earliest friends from childhood and beyond are Hispanics.

Susan

Grace,

It’s seems hard for those who do not live in state greatly affected by illegal immigration to understand the problems. I grew up in California and Colorado, lived most of my life in Colorado, and now live in Texas. It’s seems some are brainwashed by the liberal tripe that says illegals only do work others do not want to do. think the majority are law-abiding (except for being illegal and working illegally) and do not understand the damage done to the local economies (especially the construction and landscape industries). They also fail to understand the proud Hispanic families who have been American citizens for 5 or more generations and hate the destruction done by the illegals. They fail to understand the problems of the towns and cities along the Mexican drug routes, the drug gang wars, and the way it raises the crime rates because of the violence and theft. They fail to understand the squalor they cause when they rent a place for a family of 4 and put 20-25 people in it. Or how that section of a town falls into squalor. It’s too easy for wanna-be pundits to declare Obama’s latest nose-thumb at congress and disregard for the law good. They don’t understand the issues nor have they learned anything from Reagan’s amnesty.

Victor Davis Hanson, a classist professor, fellow at the Hoover Institute, and a 5th generation raisin farmer in California’s Central Valley has written much about the problems with compassion. I wish more people would read and learn the truth about illegal immigration instead of swallowing liberal victimology. Let the liberals experience living in the midst of numerous illegals and experience problems like they have in Selma and other places. It’s not a lack of compassion on the part of conservative types. It’s a need to deal with reality and a need for the old tradition of assimilation of new immigrants. Here’s a short clip of an interview with VDH that you may appreciate:

But then again, it’s not compassionate to tell the truth and we must be racists even though some of our earliest friends from childhood and beyond are Hispanics.

Grace

sg,

QUESTION:

I’ve wondered many times why the massive amounts of illegal immigrants don’t stay in their own countries, band and work together, to make it a better place to live – but instead, come here, as the sides of our country are bulging, with not enough jobs, etc.

The old argument that most citizens would not do the work which the illegal will take, is FALSE. We’ve watched fast food for the past months – all of a sudden we have kids who speak English taking the orders, (no more mix-ups) those who were employed, before, poor to zero English skills are no longer there. We observe it in many areas, including stores. INTERESTING!

If corporations want to send their jobs, abroad, why not below the border? At least the shipping would be cheaper, thousands would have jobs. Why not take advantage of countries that are closer, rather than China and other Asian countries?

Grace

sg,

QUESTION:

I’ve wondered many times why the massive amounts of illegal immigrants don’t stay in their own countries, band and work together, to make it a better place to live – but instead, come here, as the sides of our country are bulging, with not enough jobs, etc.

The old argument that most citizens would not do the work which the illegal will take, is FALSE. We’ve watched fast food for the past months – all of a sudden we have kids who speak English taking the orders, (no more mix-ups) those who were employed, before, poor to zero English skills are no longer there. We observe it in many areas, including stores. INTERESTING!

If corporations want to send their jobs, abroad, why not below the border? At least the shipping would be cheaper, thousands would have jobs. Why not take advantage of countries that are closer, rather than China and other Asian countries?

Nothing. But the current specific situation deserves specific analysis. First, do the citizens of this country have the right to determine immigration policy or not? The citizens of this country by and large do not want more immigration. Do they get a voice and is that voice authoritative? As in does the executive branch have to do its duty and enforce the laws that are duly enacted by the people’s representatives? Or can the executive branch just decide it knows better, neglect to enforce the lawful policy, and then say that it is forced to take action in direct defiance of the people? Basically, this is a sovereignty issue. So, who is the sovereign in this republic, the people or its chief executive? Is the chief executive the servant of the people or not?

Nothing. But the current specific situation deserves specific analysis. First, do the citizens of this country have the right to determine immigration policy or not? The citizens of this country by and large do not want more immigration. Do they get a voice and is that voice authoritative? As in does the executive branch have to do its duty and enforce the laws that are duly enacted by the people’s representatives? Or can the executive branch just decide it knows better, neglect to enforce the lawful policy, and then say that it is forced to take action in direct defiance of the people? Basically, this is a sovereignty issue. So, who is the sovereign in this republic, the people or its chief executive? Is the chief executive the servant of the people or not?

Susan

sg & SKPeterson,

If I may ask, are you differentiating between lawful and unlawful immigration? If so, I have yet to meet anyone who is against lawful immigration and is not welcoming to legal immigrants. It is the unlawful immigration that the people I know are against. Exceptions made for those fleeing honest threats against their lives whether political, religious, or so forth. The illegal Mexican immigrants are not in life threatening situations. Recent reports have shown that numbers of illegals are returning home because the employment situation here.

Also, may I ask SKPeterson if he is remembering the importance of the 2 kingdom differences with the need for the government to exercise the sword. If illegals are overrunning American citizen’s property, liberty, lives, and so forth, should not the state enforce it’s laws? Does the strange extra-legal bent of Obama’s administration bother you? In this case he is willfully and knowingly thumbing his nose at the constitutional legislative process of making or changing laws and has already chosen to not enforce the existing laws regarding immigration for the last few years.

How about his low opinion of upholding or following the law in other areas under his watch. Eg: not enforcing DOMA, the Labor department trying to shut down the new Boeing non-union plant, EPA trying to shut things down without legislative approval (eg: power plants), trying to reverse the order of the Chrysler creditors and breaking laws that protect creditors: mass shutdowns of auto dealerships while expending billions of taxpayer of money for union benefits/pensions while non-union members lost their pensions. But I suppose I am foolish since Obama has such a superior and noble character that warrants his use of any means to reach his ends. Why should such a mere mortal be bound to the laws and constitution he swore to uphold? Color me thinking a due regard for the rule of law in the left hand kingdom is important and God given.

Susan

sg & SKPeterson,

If I may ask, are you differentiating between lawful and unlawful immigration? If so, I have yet to meet anyone who is against lawful immigration and is not welcoming to legal immigrants. It is the unlawful immigration that the people I know are against. Exceptions made for those fleeing honest threats against their lives whether political, religious, or so forth. The illegal Mexican immigrants are not in life threatening situations. Recent reports have shown that numbers of illegals are returning home because the employment situation here.

Also, may I ask SKPeterson if he is remembering the importance of the 2 kingdom differences with the need for the government to exercise the sword. If illegals are overrunning American citizen’s property, liberty, lives, and so forth, should not the state enforce it’s laws? Does the strange extra-legal bent of Obama’s administration bother you? In this case he is willfully and knowingly thumbing his nose at the constitutional legislative process of making or changing laws and has already chosen to not enforce the existing laws regarding immigration for the last few years.

How about his low opinion of upholding or following the law in other areas under his watch. Eg: not enforcing DOMA, the Labor department trying to shut down the new Boeing non-union plant, EPA trying to shut things down without legislative approval (eg: power plants), trying to reverse the order of the Chrysler creditors and breaking laws that protect creditors: mass shutdowns of auto dealerships while expending billions of taxpayer of money for union benefits/pensions while non-union members lost their pensions. But I suppose I am foolish since Obama has such a superior and noble character that warrants his use of any means to reach his ends. Why should such a mere mortal be bound to the laws and constitution he swore to uphold? Color me thinking a due regard for the rule of law in the left hand kingdom is important and God given.

To me, it is a “who’s the boss?” issue. The contempt for democracy galls me. Why did we establish representative government only to be told to shut up as the crony capitalists elect a new people? The citizens of this country have the right to restrict who may enter this country and we don’t have to give any reason to anyone. It is our right. Period. We are not obliged to let anyone in ever. Now we may choose to. And we have been extremely generous in welcoming people. However, we now have exploitive businesses telling us through their government puppets that we have to let anyone to breaks the law through illegal entry be allowed the rights of citizenship. That is atrocious. Of course they start with the “poor innocent kids” but that is just the beginning. The real attack is on the sovereignty of the citizens of this country.

To me, it is a “who’s the boss?” issue. The contempt for democracy galls me. Why did we establish representative government only to be told to shut up as the crony capitalists elect a new people? The citizens of this country have the right to restrict who may enter this country and we don’t have to give any reason to anyone. It is our right. Period. We are not obliged to let anyone in ever. Now we may choose to. And we have been extremely generous in welcoming people. However, we now have exploitive businesses telling us through their government puppets that we have to let anyone to breaks the law through illegal entry be allowed the rights of citizenship. That is atrocious. Of course they start with the “poor innocent kids” but that is just the beginning. The real attack is on the sovereignty of the citizens of this country.

reg

a couple of thoughts:
For Grace et al:
Lev. 199 “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. 10 And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the Lord your God.
Deut 10 18 He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing. 19 Love the sojourner, therefore, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.

and for the right wing hand wringers “its the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.”

reg

a couple of thoughts:
For Grace et al:
Lev. 199 “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. 10 And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the Lord your God.
Deut 10 18 He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing. 19 Love the sojourner, therefore, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.

and for the right wing hand wringers “its the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.”

Susan

@ reg:

Re: your couple of thoughts:

Are you a theonomist or a two kingdom believer?

Susan

@ reg:

Re: your couple of thoughts:

Are you a theonomist or a two kingdom believer?

Grace

reg @32

Using the Scripture suggested is not applicable.

First of all, the people who have come here illegally, have harmed our country, they have lied, cheated and stolen that which isn’t theirs. That includes free education, health care, jobs, and the selling of drugs, and other illegal activity, that hurts our community.

Drugs are a huge problem here. It’s not just in the areas that are dumps, it goes all the way to the top. Drugs have ruined many young peoples lives, that includes those who haven’t even finished middle school, up through high school and beyond. Many of these drugs come from below the border.

reg, you can say ” for the right wing hand wringers “its the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.” – you don’t speak for all the people, those who deal with this either with their children, or their loved ones.

Gangs formed, even coming into the best communities, is formidable, it’s not something anyone can ignore. They don’t live here, we have never seen them before. They come into communities late at night in large numbers – unless you happen to hear just a faint sound, you would never know – or wake up in the middle of the night to use the bathroom, then look out your bedroom windows, to find 5 to 12 or so teens or a bit older walking in the middle of the street, NOT from this area. The police are excellent, but the problem is growing.

This has nothing to do with “gleanings after the harvest” – you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Grace

reg @32

Using the Scripture suggested is not applicable.

First of all, the people who have come here illegally, have harmed our country, they have lied, cheated and stolen that which isn’t theirs. That includes free education, health care, jobs, and the selling of drugs, and other illegal activity, that hurts our community.

Drugs are a huge problem here. It’s not just in the areas that are dumps, it goes all the way to the top. Drugs have ruined many young peoples lives, that includes those who haven’t even finished middle school, up through high school and beyond. Many of these drugs come from below the border.

reg, you can say ” for the right wing hand wringers “its the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.” – you don’t speak for all the people, those who deal with this either with their children, or their loved ones.

Gangs formed, even coming into the best communities, is formidable, it’s not something anyone can ignore. They don’t live here, we have never seen them before. They come into communities late at night in large numbers – unless you happen to hear just a faint sound, you would never know – or wake up in the middle of the night to use the bathroom, then look out your bedroom windows, to find 5 to 12 or so teens or a bit older walking in the middle of the street, NOT from this area. The police are excellent, but the problem is growing.

This has nothing to do with “gleanings after the harvest” – you don’t know what you’re talking about.

J Bass

After reading much of the tripe in the preceding comments, I don’t have to wonder why Latinos aren’t flocking to Lutheran churches.

J Bass

After reading much of the tripe in the preceding comments, I don’t have to wonder why Latinos aren’t flocking to Lutheran churches.

I’m all for reforming immigration laws, but the simple fact of the matter is that by preventing the laws we have from being enforced, the open borders crowd has pretty much poisoned things for everyone. Therefore nobody trusts Democrats when they say “well, we’ll enforce these laws!”–because we’ve heard that story before.

Or, put differently, I’ll be in favor of immigration law reform when (a) President Obama backs off from his illegal executive order and (b) there is a combination fence/vehicle barrier on the border, so we don’t need to rely as much on whether our leaders will deign to actually enforce the laws we have.

It should also be noted that the current situation–where millions can be told “do it or be deported” or “do it or be replaced by someone who can be deported”–is not exactly a kindness to our most vulnerable workers. Didn’t the Democrats previously take the side of vulnerable workers? What happened?

I’m all for reforming immigration laws, but the simple fact of the matter is that by preventing the laws we have from being enforced, the open borders crowd has pretty much poisoned things for everyone. Therefore nobody trusts Democrats when they say “well, we’ll enforce these laws!”–because we’ve heard that story before.

Or, put differently, I’ll be in favor of immigration law reform when (a) President Obama backs off from his illegal executive order and (b) there is a combination fence/vehicle barrier on the border, so we don’t need to rely as much on whether our leaders will deign to actually enforce the laws we have.

It should also be noted that the current situation–where millions can be told “do it or be deported” or “do it or be replaced by someone who can be deported”–is not exactly a kindness to our most vulnerable workers. Didn’t the Democrats previously take the side of vulnerable workers? What happened?

reg

Susan@33,
2K all the way.

reg

Susan@33,
2K all the way.

Grace

Bike @ 36

“Or, put differently, I’ll be in favor of immigration law reform when (a) President Obama backs off from his illegal executive order and (b) there is a combination fence/vehicle barrier on the border, so we don’t need to rely as much on whether our leaders will deign to actually enforce the laws we have. “

That’s it Bike

We do have laws in place, however the BLIND EYE routine, is a favorite sport with this administration.

Grace

Bike @ 36

“Or, put differently, I’ll be in favor of immigration law reform when (a) President Obama backs off from his illegal executive order and (b) there is a combination fence/vehicle barrier on the border, so we don’t need to rely as much on whether our leaders will deign to actually enforce the laws we have. “

That’s it Bike

We do have laws in place, however the BLIND EYE routine, is a favorite sport with this administration.

Grace

reg,

Do you keep all the other Levitical laws? – or do you pick and choose?

1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Concerning the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts.

3 Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings.

4 These are the feasts of the LORD, even holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons.

5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD’s passover.

6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread.

7 In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein.

8 But ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD seven days: in the seventh day is an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein.

9 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

10 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest:

11 And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it.

12 And ye shall offer that day when ye wave the sheaf an he lamb without blemish of the first year for a burnt offering unto the LORD.

13 And the meat offering thereof shall be two tenth deals of fine flour mingled with oil, an offering made by fire unto the LORD for a sweet savor: and the drink offering thereof shall be of wine, the fourth part of an hin.

15 And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete:

16 Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the LORD.

17 Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth deals; they shall be of fine flour; they shall be baked with leaven; they are the firstfruits unto the LORD.

18 And ye shall offer with the bread seven lambs without blemish of the first year, and one young bullock, and two rams: they shall be for a burnt offering unto the LORD, with their meat offering, and their drink offerings, even an offering made by fire, of sweet savor unto the LORD.

– – – – – REG – do you offer kid goats for a sin offering – after the LORD Jesus Christ died for our sins on the Cross?

22 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not make clean riddance of the corners of thy field when thou reapest, neither shalt thou gather any gleaning of thy harvest: thou shalt leave them unto the poor, and to the stranger: I am the LORD your God. Leviticus 23

Grace

reg,

Do you keep all the other Levitical laws? – or do you pick and choose?

1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Concerning the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts.

3 Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings.

4 These are the feasts of the LORD, even holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons.

5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD’s passover.

6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread.

7 In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein.

8 But ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD seven days: in the seventh day is an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein.

9 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

10 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest:

11 And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it.

12 And ye shall offer that day when ye wave the sheaf an he lamb without blemish of the first year for a burnt offering unto the LORD.

13 And the meat offering thereof shall be two tenth deals of fine flour mingled with oil, an offering made by fire unto the LORD for a sweet savor: and the drink offering thereof shall be of wine, the fourth part of an hin.

15 And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete:

16 Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the LORD.

17 Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth deals; they shall be of fine flour; they shall be baked with leaven; they are the firstfruits unto the LORD.

18 And ye shall offer with the bread seven lambs without blemish of the first year, and one young bullock, and two rams: they shall be for a burnt offering unto the LORD, with their meat offering, and their drink offerings, even an offering made by fire, of sweet savor unto the LORD.

– – – – – REG – do you offer kid goats for a sin offering – after the LORD Jesus Christ died for our sins on the Cross?

22 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not make clean riddance of the corners of thy field when thou reapest, neither shalt thou gather any gleaning of thy harvest: thou shalt leave them unto the poor, and to the stranger: I am the LORD your God. Leviticus 23

helen

Susan @ 26 They fail to understand the squalor they cause when they rent a place for a family of 4 and put 20-25 people in it. Or how that section of a town falls into squalor

Friends of mine owned a house in a neighborhood that was overrun. Another house or two on the block was rented to illegals. On weekends other illegals swarmed in, parked on anybody’s lawn, drank and voided themselves anywhere and everywhere. The owners still living on the block, who were older folks, were afraid to go out of their houses into their own yards. One complained about trespassing and the trespassers slashed his tires in his driveway.
The couple I knew couldn’t sell and move out. Finally, the husband died and the wife got a place elsewhere with county assistance. I don’t know what happened to the house.If you look for an apartment in this town, and rents are half the usual on some streets, you stay away from that area. It’s best to ask a policeman to look up the records of calls to any complex you are considering.

helen

Susan @ 26 They fail to understand the squalor they cause when they rent a place for a family of 4 and put 20-25 people in it. Or how that section of a town falls into squalor

Friends of mine owned a house in a neighborhood that was overrun. Another house or two on the block was rented to illegals. On weekends other illegals swarmed in, parked on anybody’s lawn, drank and voided themselves anywhere and everywhere. The owners still living on the block, who were older folks, were afraid to go out of their houses into their own yards. One complained about trespassing and the trespassers slashed his tires in his driveway.
The couple I knew couldn’t sell and move out. Finally, the husband died and the wife got a place elsewhere with county assistance. I don’t know what happened to the house.If you look for an apartment in this town, and rents are half the usual on some streets, you stay away from that area. It’s best to ask a policeman to look up the records of calls to any complex you are considering.

Susan

@reg

Sadly, your thoughts and 2k don’t jive. Governments are supposed to protect their citizens from lawbreakers.

Susan

@reg

Sadly, your thoughts and 2k don’t jive. Governments are supposed to protect their citizens from lawbreakers.

Susan

@Helen

I am so sorry to hear of your friend’s story. I wish it was unusual. And the advice about consulting the police regarding an area is sound. Unfortunately, for many of our most vulnerable citizens, they have few options.

What I find ridiculous is when liberals pontificate about situations that they are far removed from. A reality that never touches their lives and they are seduced by their feel-good warm fuzzies about their benevolence toward the latest liberal cause celebre. I will be impressed by the liberals when they care about actually doing something for the helpless elderly, the disabled, the chronically ill, and other vulnerable people who are being harmed and undercut financially by the illegals in welfare benefits and services. But, sheesh, what a foolish thought. These poor people can’t be organized into a victim group to be rallied for political purposes. They too sick, too old, too poor, and house bound to attend meetings, march on the streets. or propagandize their neighbors. Absolutely useless for political gain!

Susan

@Helen

I am so sorry to hear of your friend’s story. I wish it was unusual. And the advice about consulting the police regarding an area is sound. Unfortunately, for many of our most vulnerable citizens, they have few options.

What I find ridiculous is when liberals pontificate about situations that they are far removed from. A reality that never touches their lives and they are seduced by their feel-good warm fuzzies about their benevolence toward the latest liberal cause celebre. I will be impressed by the liberals when they care about actually doing something for the helpless elderly, the disabled, the chronically ill, and other vulnerable people who are being harmed and undercut financially by the illegals in welfare benefits and services. But, sheesh, what a foolish thought. These poor people can’t be organized into a victim group to be rallied for political purposes. They too sick, too old, too poor, and house bound to attend meetings, march on the streets. or propagandize their neighbors. Absolutely useless for political gain!

Grace

Susan

I agree!

The problems are in very good areas, all the way to the top.

Urinating on lawns (in all the best areas) is now the latest craze, even among other groups, and teens.

Grace

Susan

I agree!

The problems are in very good areas, all the way to the top.

Urinating on lawns (in all the best areas) is now the latest craze, even among other groups, and teens.

Susan

@Grace,

I had not heard of that being a problem in the better neighborhoods. Here, it seems to be limited to the affected neighborhoods and that unsanitary behavior more associated with drugs/alcohol abuse. And here, not every lower rent area has problems with illegals. We have a lot of legal immigrants who make wonderful neighbors and are as concerned as everyone else about neighborhood safety.

Susan

@Grace,

I had not heard of that being a problem in the better neighborhoods. Here, it seems to be limited to the affected neighborhoods and that unsanitary behavior more associated with drugs/alcohol abuse. And here, not every lower rent area has problems with illegals. We have a lot of legal immigrants who make wonderful neighbors and are as concerned as everyone else about neighborhood safety.

Susan and Grace,
I was more talking about the the utter lack of charity, grace, compassion, “hesed” in your comments. I was not suggesting the Levitical laws applied, but rather that we as Christians exhibit at least a modicum of the qualities we are exhorted to show to the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner, the “other,” etc. There is a tone to many of the comments on this blog which do not suggest to me at least that much of the biblical view is informing the opinions expressed. We are to be charitable, etc, we are to respect government authorities, we are to lead quiet lives living at peace with all in so far as it depends on us-not because the law says so or else, but because we are thankful to our Savior and wish to live as the Word asks us to.
So back on topic, while I believe immigration reform is needed and I think Bush’s plan on this was a good one (everybody gets something right sometimes), we also need to tone down the sky is falling/its the end of the world view at any minor tinkering with immigration laws such as this. Fear not, the republic has not been lost, nor have we become socialist french pod people in our sleep.

reg

Susan and Grace,
I was more talking about the the utter lack of charity, grace, compassion, “hesed” in your comments. I was not suggesting the Levitical laws applied, but rather that we as Christians exhibit at least a modicum of the qualities we are exhorted to show to the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner, the “other,” etc. There is a tone to many of the comments on this blog which do not suggest to me at least that much of the biblical view is informing the opinions expressed. We are to be charitable, etc, we are to respect government authorities, we are to lead quiet lives living at peace with all in so far as it depends on us-not because the law says so or else, but because we are thankful to our Savior and wish to live as the Word asks us to.
So back on topic, while I believe immigration reform is needed and I think Bush’s plan on this was a good one (everybody gets something right sometimes), we also need to tone down the sky is falling/its the end of the world view at any minor tinkering with immigration laws such as this. Fear not, the republic has not been lost, nor have we become socialist french pod people in our sleep.

Susan

@reg

It sounds like you are forgetting the distinctions of two kingdoms. Thanksgiving for our Savior should not be used as an excuse to ignore the needs of our lawful neighbors. I would point out that there is a lack of charity, compassion, and understanding on your part for legal citizens who suffer harm at hands of the illegals. Are illegal neighbors more important than legal neighbors? If you believe the unlawful choices of illegal immigrants should be elevated over the lawful needs of legal citizens, I would suggest that there are problems with your thinking. It sounds like you have no regard for your lawful neighbors desires to lead peaceful, quiet lives under governmental authority.

I find your statements like: “Fear not, the republic has not been lost, nor have we become socialist french pod people in our sleep” irrelevant to the subject of illegal immigration. Where do you live reg?

Susan

@reg

It sounds like you are forgetting the distinctions of two kingdoms. Thanksgiving for our Savior should not be used as an excuse to ignore the needs of our lawful neighbors. I would point out that there is a lack of charity, compassion, and understanding on your part for legal citizens who suffer harm at hands of the illegals. Are illegal neighbors more important than legal neighbors? If you believe the unlawful choices of illegal immigrants should be elevated over the lawful needs of legal citizens, I would suggest that there are problems with your thinking. It sounds like you have no regard for your lawful neighbors desires to lead peaceful, quiet lives under governmental authority.

I find your statements like: “Fear not, the republic has not been lost, nor have we become socialist french pod people in our sleep” irrelevant to the subject of illegal immigration. Where do you live reg?

I think we should let everyone in…our homes. Only two bathrooms? No problem. Only one referigerator? No problem. Only 3 bedrooms? No problem.

No borders, no brains.

Michael B.

@C-Christian Soldier
“where are the SPINE-LESS Rs?!”

There’s a good reason why Republicans are not going after illegal immigrants with the fervor you’d like to see. In the US, the percentage of whites (non-Hispanic) is shrinking. Overall, Hispanics accounted for more than half of the 27.3 million U.S. population increase since 2000. A 2008 Census Bureau projection estimated that ethnic and racial minorities will become the majority in the United States by 2050 and that about 1 in 3 U.S. residents will be Hispanic by then. (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/24/nation/la-na-census-hispanic-20110325)

The point is that if Republicans are going to win elections, they are going to need the Latino vote. If you don’t care about the Republicans winning, then by all means, ignore Hispanics. In the words of Jeb Bush, former Republican governor of Florida and brother to George W. Bush, it would be “incredibly stupid” to ignore the fastest-growing population of voters.

There’s a good reason why Republicans are not going after illegal immigrants with the fervor you’d like to see. In the US, the percentage of whites (non-Hispanic) is shrinking. Overall, Hispanics accounted for more than half of the 27.3 million U.S. population increase since 2000. A 2008 Census Bureau projection estimated that ethnic and racial minorities will become the majority in the United States by 2050 and that about 1 in 3 U.S. residents will be Hispanic by then. (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/24/nation/la-na-census-hispanic-20110325)

The point is that if Republicans are going to win elections, they are going to need the Latino vote. If you don’t care about the Republicans winning, then by all means, ignore Hispanics. In the words of Jeb Bush, former Republican governor of Florida and brother to George W. Bush, it would be “incredibly stupid” to ignore the fastest-growing population of voters.

Steve,
I think you should stick to playing the banjo and singing King Tut.

reg

Steve,
I think you should stick to playing the banjo and singing King Tut.

reg

Susan,
The question is not whether illegal immigration is a good thing, it is not and I thought Bush had it right: work permits, some minimal amount of amnesty and severe penalties going forward for hiring undocumented or notwork permitted aliens. The issue is tempering our views with a tad of Charity toward children who are victims of circumstance, particularly if they do well in school, know only the US and may wish to serve in our military.
I live in Massachusetts, which for all the jokes about it is in the top tier of states in education, health, low gun violence, low crime, lower divorce rates, less children born out of wedlock, higher incomes, less unemployment, etc. and in the middle of the pack on taxes (surprise!). (We have problems too though-from corruption, to lack of accountability, etc.)

reg

Susan,
The question is not whether illegal immigration is a good thing, it is not and I thought Bush had it right: work permits, some minimal amount of amnesty and severe penalties going forward for hiring undocumented or notwork permitted aliens. The issue is tempering our views with a tad of Charity toward children who are victims of circumstance, particularly if they do well in school, know only the US and may wish to serve in our military.
I live in Massachusetts, which for all the jokes about it is in the top tier of states in education, health, low gun violence, low crime, lower divorce rates, less children born out of wedlock, higher incomes, less unemployment, etc. and in the middle of the pack on taxes (surprise!). (We have problems too though-from corruption, to lack of accountability, etc.)

Let’s be careful of conflating immigration policy with Presidential policy. There are two separate issues here. The first involves illegal immigration. Living in Houston I got to know and work with many young men whose parents brought them here illegally. What should we do with them? Well, I can tell you one thing, the ones I knew were American through and through – deporting them would be like marooning them in a foreign land. So maybe there is room for common sense here.

But the real issue here that no one should lose sight of is the way that our current administration treats the law. This announcement amounts to re-writing the law. Is that what we want from the executive branch? It seems these days the answer is always “yes – if it’s our man”.

Let’s be careful of conflating immigration policy with Presidential policy. There are two separate issues here. The first involves illegal immigration. Living in Houston I got to know and work with many young men whose parents brought them here illegally. What should we do with them? Well, I can tell you one thing, the ones I knew were American through and through – deporting them would be like marooning them in a foreign land. So maybe there is room for common sense here.

But the real issue here that no one should lose sight of is the way that our current administration treats the law. This announcement amounts to re-writing the law. Is that what we want from the executive branch? It seems these days the answer is always “yes – if it’s our man”.

fws

sk & reg

+++++1

Susan:

You don’t have even the closest clue what the Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms teaches. Hint: Law and Gospel.
Another hint: NOTHING to do with separation of church and state.

fws

sk & reg

+++++1

Susan:

You don’t have even the closest clue what the Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms teaches. Hint: Law and Gospel.
Another hint: NOTHING to do with separation of church and state.

fws

John @51

The fact remains that Obama has done nothing unlawful. Our government is foundationally structured for just such executive branch actions.

My proof for this is that the executive branch has seen fit to “interpret” and execute legislation as it sees fit since the time of Geo Washington.

Constitutional Law provides the Supreme Court and Federal Courts with tenured justices to maintain the balance.

All laws, even poop scoop ordinances, need interpretation at some level. The disagreement is not that this fact does not exist.

Thus exists the supreme court to broker the relationship between the legislative and executive branch.

Both the Courts and the Executive branch routinely turn to the intent of the Law and not merely the letter. Sticking to the letter would result in an insane application of any law. It would be justice that only kills and produces none of the Mercy that is God’s end intent for any law to exist.

fws

John @51

The fact remains that Obama has done nothing unlawful. Our government is foundationally structured for just such executive branch actions.

My proof for this is that the executive branch has seen fit to “interpret” and execute legislation as it sees fit since the time of Geo Washington.

Constitutional Law provides the Supreme Court and Federal Courts with tenured justices to maintain the balance.

All laws, even poop scoop ordinances, need interpretation at some level. The disagreement is not that this fact does not exist.

Thus exists the supreme court to broker the relationship between the legislative and executive branch.

Both the Courts and the Executive branch routinely turn to the intent of the Law and not merely the letter. Sticking to the letter would result in an insane application of any law. It would be justice that only kills and produces none of the Mercy that is God’s end intent for any law to exist.

fws

The republicans are incapable of dealing with the underlying issue here.

It was sooo predictable that they would only, weakly , home in on the “how” and not at all on the “what”.

This is politics at it’s worst. Any republican that would praise Obama’s action would be labeled a heretic by the Republicans.

fws

The republicans are incapable of dealing with the underlying issue here.

It was sooo predictable that they would only, weakly , home in on the “how” and not at all on the “what”.

This is politics at it’s worst. Any republican that would praise Obama’s action would be labeled a heretic by the Republicans.

Susan

@John,

The article below may interest you. It appears that part of what Obama did is illegal. I am not only concerned with the lawlessness of the Obama administration, but also ticked at the way Obama is jerking around the Hispanic communities for votes.

Excerpt:
The president’s executive order will categorically prevent the deportation of certain illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children. It will also grant them work authorizations to which they would not otherwise be entitled under law. The former is unwise and the latter is illegal.

The federal executive branch, like a local district attorney or a traffic cop, has some discretion about how, when, and whether to prosecute certain violations of the law. Not every driver exceeding the speed limit by 4 mph will receive a ticket, and not every teenager caught shoplifting will face a criminal indictment. Police and prosecutors are granted some leeway in these matters — but they cannot change the speed limit or legalize theft. That requires an act of the legislature. By making the liberal use of this discretion mandatory, the Obama administration is in effect writing new law rather than enforcing existing law.

Susan

@John,

The article below may interest you. It appears that part of what Obama did is illegal. I am not only concerned with the lawlessness of the Obama administration, but also ticked at the way Obama is jerking around the Hispanic communities for votes.

Excerpt:
The president’s executive order will categorically prevent the deportation of certain illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children. It will also grant them work authorizations to which they would not otherwise be entitled under law. The former is unwise and the latter is illegal.

The federal executive branch, like a local district attorney or a traffic cop, has some discretion about how, when, and whether to prosecute certain violations of the law. Not every driver exceeding the speed limit by 4 mph will receive a ticket, and not every teenager caught shoplifting will face a criminal indictment. Police and prosecutors are granted some leeway in these matters — but they cannot change the speed limit or legalize theft. That requires an act of the legislature. By making the liberal use of this discretion mandatory, the Obama administration is in effect writing new law rather than enforcing existing law.

“Living in Houston I got to know and work with many young men whose parents brought them here illegally. What should we do with them?”

Send them home.

” Well, I can tell you one thing, the ones I knew were American through and through – deporting them would be like marooning them in a foreign land.”

So what? The US was foreign to their parents when they arrived, and they managed.

There is nothing cruel about deporting people back to their own countries. There is nothing inhumane about living in some country other than the US. Their own home countries are not hospitable to foreigners. You cannot move there and live of the largesse of their citizens. And there is nothing inhumane about it.

The folks who like illegal immigration stand to profit from it. They insulate themselves from the problems because they have the means to do so. The costs of it are borne by those who cannot profit from it and must compete against cheaper labor and cannot insulate themselves from the crime etc. So, illegal immigration is swell for the rich but crappy for the middle class and below. So spare us the magnanimous moral preening about caring for the poor. More like profiting from their vulnerability and dumping their dysfunction on those communities that are oh so beneath the high minded ideals of those who don’t have to get their hands dirty.

“Living in Houston I got to know and work with many young men whose parents brought them here illegally. What should we do with them?”

Send them home.

” Well, I can tell you one thing, the ones I knew were American through and through – deporting them would be like marooning them in a foreign land.”

So what? The US was foreign to their parents when they arrived, and they managed.

There is nothing cruel about deporting people back to their own countries. There is nothing inhumane about living in some country other than the US. Their own home countries are not hospitable to foreigners. You cannot move there and live of the largesse of their citizens. And there is nothing inhumane about it.

The folks who like illegal immigration stand to profit from it. They insulate themselves from the problems because they have the means to do so. The costs of it are borne by those who cannot profit from it and must compete against cheaper labor and cannot insulate themselves from the crime etc. So, illegal immigration is swell for the rich but crappy for the middle class and below. So spare us the magnanimous moral preening about caring for the poor. More like profiting from their vulnerability and dumping their dysfunction on those communities that are oh so beneath the high minded ideals of those who don’t have to get their hands dirty.

Susan

@fws – I think you are one who is confused. The government is not the dispenser of the gospel. The Church is. The government’s role is establishing and enforcing laws.

Susan

@fws – I think you are one who is confused. The government is not the dispenser of the gospel. The Church is. The government’s role is establishing and enforcing laws.

“Both the Courts and the Executive branch routinely turn to the intent of the Law and not merely the letter”

So, what is the intent of our immigration laws that specify exactly who may come and how? What is the intent?

Michael B.

“where are the SPINE-LESS Rs?!”

There’s a good reason why Republicans are not going after illegal immigrants with the fervor you’d like to see. In the US, the percentage of whites (non-Hispanic) is shrinking. Overall, Hispanics accounted for more than half of the 27.3 million U.S. population increase since 2000. A 2008 Census Bureau projection estimated that ethnic and racial minorities will become the majority in the United States by 2050 and that about 1 in 3 U.S. residents will be Hispanic by then.

But here’s one statistic that once you hear, you shouldn’t forget. In 2008 John McCain received the same percentage of the white vote as Ronald Reagan in 1980. Reagan not only won, he won in a landslide. McCain lost.

The point is that if Republicans are going to win elections, they are going to need the Latino vote. If you don’t care about the Republicans winning, then by all means, ignore Hispanics. In the words of Jeb Bush, former Republican governor of Florida and brother to George W. Bush, it would be “incredibly stupid” to ignore the fastest-growing population of voters.

I imagine at this point there are actually people thinking Hispanics won’t support illegal immigrants. Talk about wishful thinking. Nationally, a Pew Center survey in December found that a whopping 91 percent of Latinos supported the Dream Act.

Michael B.

“where are the SPINE-LESS Rs?!”

There’s a good reason why Republicans are not going after illegal immigrants with the fervor you’d like to see. In the US, the percentage of whites (non-Hispanic) is shrinking. Overall, Hispanics accounted for more than half of the 27.3 million U.S. population increase since 2000. A 2008 Census Bureau projection estimated that ethnic and racial minorities will become the majority in the United States by 2050 and that about 1 in 3 U.S. residents will be Hispanic by then.

But here’s one statistic that once you hear, you shouldn’t forget. In 2008 John McCain received the same percentage of the white vote as Ronald Reagan in 1980. Reagan not only won, he won in a landslide. McCain lost.

The point is that if Republicans are going to win elections, they are going to need the Latino vote. If you don’t care about the Republicans winning, then by all means, ignore Hispanics. In the words of Jeb Bush, former Republican governor of Florida and brother to George W. Bush, it would be “incredibly stupid” to ignore the fastest-growing population of voters.

I imagine at this point there are actually people thinking Hispanics won’t support illegal immigrants. Talk about wishful thinking. Nationally, a Pew Center survey in December found that a whopping 91 percent of Latinos supported the Dream Act.

Thanks for answering about your location. I would have to ask: how much is your state affected by illegal immigration? I’m guessing it is nothing like the border states and would joke that I bet illegal Canadians aren’t a problem for your state. I would ask that you try to understand what it can be like in border states where living in the midst of the repercussions of illegal immigration is a reality not an academic exercise. We have oodles and oodles of legal immigrants from all over the world here with 1st generation enclaves from Russian, Eastern Europe, India, South America, and even China. This is not a problem. The massive illegal immigration from Mexico is.

I’m not opposed to immigration reforms or unsympathetic towards the kids who are here illegally. Until there are reforms, I would like the laws enforced. The costs of supporting the illegals through governmental programs are phenomenal. Our most vulnerable citizens should be the priority in receiving needed services not the illegals. Just as I would not take my children’s food and give it away so that others may eat while my children go hungry, I cannot support welfare for illegals while our own citizens suffer. Illegals should be barred from welfare services (emergency exceptions like ER noted) and school enrollments. Measures like that would help remove the temptations to move here and use our system and help encourage legal immigration. That may sound harsh, but once upon a time, those were the rules and it helped keep illegal immigration in check.

Susan

Reg,

Thanks for answering about your location. I would have to ask: how much is your state affected by illegal immigration? I’m guessing it is nothing like the border states and would joke that I bet illegal Canadians aren’t a problem for your state. I would ask that you try to understand what it can be like in border states where living in the midst of the repercussions of illegal immigration is a reality not an academic exercise. We have oodles and oodles of legal immigrants from all over the world here with 1st generation enclaves from Russian, Eastern Europe, India, South America, and even China. This is not a problem. The massive illegal immigration from Mexico is.

I’m not opposed to immigration reforms or unsympathetic towards the kids who are here illegally. Until there are reforms, I would like the laws enforced. The costs of supporting the illegals through governmental programs are phenomenal. Our most vulnerable citizens should be the priority in receiving needed services not the illegals. Just as I would not take my children’s food and give it away so that others may eat while my children go hungry, I cannot support welfare for illegals while our own citizens suffer. Illegals should be barred from welfare services (emergency exceptions like ER noted) and school enrollments. Measures like that would help remove the temptations to move here and use our system and help encourage legal immigration. That may sound harsh, but once upon a time, those were the rules and it helped keep illegal immigration in check.

No Susan. You are ignoring the difference between Justice and Mercy. And you seem to assume that justice without mercy = righteousness. Justice without mercy is not righeousness even to pagans. It is a literal “miscarriage” of justice.

So how is this possible? Doesn’t justice demand that we enforce the letter of the Law regardless of circumstances? Isn’t that what ‘to be righeous” is to look like?

No. Why not?

First: This understanding would neither follow the Law of Reason that is the complete Divine Law of God written in the mind (romans 2:15), nor would it follow the SAME Law found in the Decalog.
Why not?

small m mercy is not Gospel. Mercy is something that the Law demands that we DO. Anything we can DO Susan is something that is a fruit of the Law. There is NO Gospel there. Not even if it is a Christian doing it. Not even if there is an imagined “gospel motivation”. Nope. STILL Old Adam and the Law. Alone!

It may seem like mercy is Gospel. Why? Mercy is the exact opposite of Justice. It is to give someone the opposite of what they deserve or are entitled to. That sounds like the Gospel. It is not. It is the God Desired fruit of Justice that the Law works.

small m mercy is the God Desired fruit of the Law. The work of the Law, or “the-law-in-action” we know as Justice. So what is Justice?

Justice always requires a death. It always requires a sacrifice. Justice precisely says this “cut the baby in two”. This is the perfect picture of justice. Someone has to become “dead-to-rights”. That is what justice does . There can be no mercy in Justice. Why not? Justice is the Law-at-work. The Law ALWAYS does what? Remember: The Law ALWAYS accuses. The Law ONLY accuses and kills. This is true even when it instructs Christians. Especially then in fact.

So then. Godly Righeousness is always this here on earth: Righeousness=Justice(mortification)+Love(mercy).

The religious error is to imagine that righeousness can be justice that is not required to bear the reason-able, evidential , sense-ible fruit of Mercy. In that case Righteousness=Sacrifice or … Righteousness=Obedience to the Law.

No. The Lutheran Confessions reject this. Yes Mortification is necessary. But Mortification only is half way to righteousness. it is to be half pregnant. It is the miscarriage of justice. Literally. True and Godly righeousness that God demands that even the Pagans know and do is only that mortification that directly results in Goodness and Mercy being done to others. And that Mercy and Goodness must be sense-ible and evidential and apparent to reason. This is the exact point St James makes. And the Lutheran Confessions agree with this point of St James Susan.

To distinguish Law and Gospel one must first understand the Law. And to understand the Law one must understand the words mercy, justice, sacrifice, obedience, reason, natural law (that is the Law written perfectly in the Reason of ALL men), and God’s Eternal Will.

So only now we can do Two Kingdoms:

The Eternal Will of God is not obedience or conformity to the Law.
The Eternal Will of God is for Goodness and Mercy to be done among men.
So God rules in Two Kingdoms with two Powers.

On Earth, in the Earthly Kingdom, which contains ALL we can see and do in our will, our reason, our hearts and our soul, God rules with the Law extorting Goodness and Mercy out of Old Adam.

Then there is a Heavenly Kingdom. This kingdom is found alone in, with and under the Earthly Law Government called the Holy Catholic Church. It consists alone of the Works of Another and to be hidden in those Works. It does not include anything at all we can see and do or think or believe or evoke. How could it? Those things are ALL included in that other earthly Law kingdom.

That is the sum and substance of the Lutheran Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms.
Bless you Susan +

fws

susan @ 57

No Susan. You are ignoring the difference between Justice and Mercy. And you seem to assume that justice without mercy = righteousness. Justice without mercy is not righeousness even to pagans. It is a literal “miscarriage” of justice.

So how is this possible? Doesn’t justice demand that we enforce the letter of the Law regardless of circumstances? Isn’t that what ‘to be righeous” is to look like?

No. Why not?

First: This understanding would neither follow the Law of Reason that is the complete Divine Law of God written in the mind (romans 2:15), nor would it follow the SAME Law found in the Decalog.
Why not?

small m mercy is not Gospel. Mercy is something that the Law demands that we DO. Anything we can DO Susan is something that is a fruit of the Law. There is NO Gospel there. Not even if it is a Christian doing it. Not even if there is an imagined “gospel motivation”. Nope. STILL Old Adam and the Law. Alone!

It may seem like mercy is Gospel. Why? Mercy is the exact opposite of Justice. It is to give someone the opposite of what they deserve or are entitled to. That sounds like the Gospel. It is not. It is the God Desired fruit of Justice that the Law works.

small m mercy is the God Desired fruit of the Law. The work of the Law, or “the-law-in-action” we know as Justice. So what is Justice?

Justice always requires a death. It always requires a sacrifice. Justice precisely says this “cut the baby in two”. This is the perfect picture of justice. Someone has to become “dead-to-rights”. That is what justice does . There can be no mercy in Justice. Why not? Justice is the Law-at-work. The Law ALWAYS does what? Remember: The Law ALWAYS accuses. The Law ONLY accuses and kills. This is true even when it instructs Christians. Especially then in fact.

So then. Godly Righeousness is always this here on earth: Righeousness=Justice(mortification)+Love(mercy).

The religious error is to imagine that righeousness can be justice that is not required to bear the reason-able, evidential , sense-ible fruit of Mercy. In that case Righteousness=Sacrifice or … Righteousness=Obedience to the Law.

No. The Lutheran Confessions reject this. Yes Mortification is necessary. But Mortification only is half way to righteousness. it is to be half pregnant. It is the miscarriage of justice. Literally. True and Godly righeousness that God demands that even the Pagans know and do is only that mortification that directly results in Goodness and Mercy being done to others. And that Mercy and Goodness must be sense-ible and evidential and apparent to reason. This is the exact point St James makes. And the Lutheran Confessions agree with this point of St James Susan.

To distinguish Law and Gospel one must first understand the Law. And to understand the Law one must understand the words mercy, justice, sacrifice, obedience, reason, natural law (that is the Law written perfectly in the Reason of ALL men), and God’s Eternal Will.

So only now we can do Two Kingdoms:

The Eternal Will of God is not obedience or conformity to the Law.
The Eternal Will of God is for Goodness and Mercy to be done among men.
So God rules in Two Kingdoms with two Powers.

On Earth, in the Earthly Kingdom, which contains ALL we can see and do in our will, our reason, our hearts and our soul, God rules with the Law extorting Goodness and Mercy out of Old Adam.

Then there is a Heavenly Kingdom. This kingdom is found alone in, with and under the Earthly Law Government called the Holy Catholic Church. It consists alone of the Works of Another and to be hidden in those Works. It does not include anything at all we can see and do or think or believe or evoke. How could it? Those things are ALL included in that other earthly Law kingdom.

That is the sum and substance of the Lutheran Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms.
Bless you Susan +

Also, plenty of us find it annoying that we often have to choose “non-hispanic white” or “hispanic” neither of which are really true. I don’t really identify as hispanic, but I don’t want to say non-hispanic white, because that isn’t true either.

Also, plenty of us find it annoying that we often have to choose “non-hispanic white” or “hispanic” neither of which are really true. I don’t really identify as hispanic, but I don’t want to say non-hispanic white, because that isn’t true either.

Susan

@fws

Sorry, but you do not understand things anywhere near as well as you think you do. I’m not confused about this anymore that I am confused about homosexuality.

Susan

@fws

Sorry, but you do not understand things anywhere near as well as you think you do. I’m not confused about this anymore that I am confused about homosexuality.

Susan

@sg #66-67

Bingo.

Susan

@sg #66-67

Bingo.

fws

susan @ 68

On what point do I depart from our confessions in what I wrote to you? Show me where I don’t understand things correctly in what I just wrote to you.

And what does homosexuality have to do with what I just wrote? Why did you bring it up?

fws

susan @ 68

On what point do I depart from our confessions in what I wrote to you? Show me where I don’t understand things correctly in what I just wrote to you.

And what does homosexuality have to do with what I just wrote? Why did you bring it up?

fws

sg @ 67

The Law God places on earth exists to annoy us and to serve others. Just follow the Law and classify yourself in a way you detest and get over it. Pick a checkbox. Ditto in paying your taxes. Follow the Law in the IRS code as though it were God’s own Law. Obey. from your heart!

fws

sg @ 67

The Law God places on earth exists to annoy us and to serve others. Just follow the Law and classify yourself in a way you detest and get over it. Pick a checkbox. Ditto in paying your taxes. Follow the Law in the IRS code as though it were God’s own Law. Obey. from your heart!

Eh, I think we serve our neighbors well when we work for good governance. I am not going to thwart the authorities, but I am going to participate appropriately as a matter of good citizenship. That includes criticizing things that are wrong.

Eh, I think we serve our neighbors well when we work for good governance. I am not going to thwart the authorities, but I am going to participate appropriately as a matter of good citizenship. That includes criticizing things that are wrong.

fws

susan

mercy is law and not Gospel.
The Law demands that you do mercy to others.
mercy is the opposite of justice.Justice is letter of the law.
God demands both justice and mercy. And that confuses you.
You manifest that even in your stray comment to me.

You think or argue that justice=mercy.
Even if it doesn’t look like it! Believe this lie to be so in faith.
Wrong again! Cf St James here.

God demands mercy as part of the “sum” of law keeping.
define mercy biblically susan. You can’t.

There is no mercy in what you say.
Only justice that demands sacrifice , obedience and our death.
And I agree that God demands that too!

fws

susan

mercy is law and not Gospel.
The Law demands that you do mercy to others.
mercy is the opposite of justice.Justice is letter of the law.
God demands both justice and mercy. And that confuses you.
You manifest that even in your stray comment to me.

You think or argue that justice=mercy.
Even if it doesn’t look like it! Believe this lie to be so in faith.
Wrong again! Cf St James here.

God demands mercy as part of the “sum” of law keeping.
define mercy biblically susan. You can’t.

There is no mercy in what you say.
Only justice that demands sacrifice , obedience and our death.
And I agree that God demands that too!

What does the Law demand of illegals? Are they to do justice and mercy as well? Or is the law only for us? Or do they lack any moral agency or responsibility?

reg

Susan @68,
Wow, cheap shot at FWS. Ad hominem, off topic, mean spirited. No hesed there. (And I have had my disagreements with FWS in the past). Over the line. Shame on you.

reg

Susan @68,
Wow, cheap shot at FWS. Ad hominem, off topic, mean spirited. No hesed there. (And I have had my disagreements with FWS in the past). Over the line. Shame on you.

fws

SG @ 72

Righteousness = mortification(justice)+love(mercy)

the Law means justice and death for US in order to produce God’s will of Mercy for OTHERS.

Your part is to die SG. That is what righeousness looks like to you. And that death of SG must look like mercy to OTHERS in order to qualify as the righteousness that God desires.

And it is not up to us to chose how we are mortified SG. We literally “suffer” God to do this to us. We don’t seek this suffering, but we accept it in faith when it comes.
We are simply to submit to the authorities and do this joyfully even when they abuse their power! (cf large catechism 4th commandment here).

your “right” or “duty” to correct the authorities is a fiction of the Enlightenment that has no place in Lutheran Theology.

You may correct them with your vote, that is, IF you feel it is appropriate for a female to exercise such authority over males thing women’s sufferage is your inalienable right as well.

To publicly criticize when it is not your place or office or official duty? maybe not nearly to the extent we think…..

fws

SG @ 72

Righteousness = mortification(justice)+love(mercy)

the Law means justice and death for US in order to produce God’s will of Mercy for OTHERS.

Your part is to die SG. That is what righeousness looks like to you. And that death of SG must look like mercy to OTHERS in order to qualify as the righteousness that God desires.

And it is not up to us to chose how we are mortified SG. We literally “suffer” God to do this to us. We don’t seek this suffering, but we accept it in faith when it comes.
We are simply to submit to the authorities and do this joyfully even when they abuse their power! (cf large catechism 4th commandment here).

your “right” or “duty” to correct the authorities is a fiction of the Enlightenment that has no place in Lutheran Theology.

You may correct them with your vote, that is, IF you feel it is appropriate for a female to exercise such authority over males thing women’s sufferage is your inalienable right as well.

To publicly criticize when it is not your place or office or official duty? maybe not nearly to the extent we think…..

fws

sg @ 74

your part is to do mercy to OTHERS and for YOU to suck it up SG. There are these two parts of Biblical Righteousness.

you put the tshirt of righeousness on exactly backwards here.

How would it look if you took it off and put it on the right way?
Jesus paints that picture this way: If someone (unjustly ) demands your coat, give him your shirt as well.

OUR part is to “suffer” injustice done to us by others, and it is to do mercy to OTHERS, especially to those who hate (are un-just) t0 us. Mercy is the opposite of what justice demands.

That is why the parables offend all sense of Justice!

fws

sg @ 74

your part is to do mercy to OTHERS and for YOU to suck it up SG. There are these two parts of Biblical Righteousness.

you put the tshirt of righeousness on exactly backwards here.

How would it look if you took it off and put it on the right way?
Jesus paints that picture this way: If someone (unjustly ) demands your coat, give him your shirt as well.

OUR part is to “suffer” injustice done to us by others, and it is to do mercy to OTHERS, especially to those who hate (are un-just) t0 us. Mercy is the opposite of what justice demands.

That is why the parables offend all sense of Justice!

fws

SG

You are right though about part of this. And I know you sensed what was missing in what I said. the government is all Law. And their job is to enforce the Law without respect to persons , status, race, ethnicity, and some even say, sexual orientation….

So where is mercy in this you need to ask. And yes SG, mercy is required by God even in actions by the Government. To do Justice without mercy even pagans see as a Miscarriage of Justice. This is obvious.

We have traditionally called this “Judicial discretion”. We deliberately write laws to allow Judges to modify their application of the Law according to circumstances. Three strikes laws and mandatory sentencing is an attempt to curb what is seen as an excess of mercy by… totally eliminating mercy!

it is a historical fact that the executive branch has the power to exercise mercy. Obama could have simply pardoned each of the cases he is treating by executive order! This would have been perfectly legal! He chose not to do that. Wisely I think.

So why did the architects of our law allow for pardons that utterly and most completely and definitively circumvent the legislative and even the judicial branch? Ask yourself that? they understood the balance between justice and mercy. Even pagans know this SG since they have the Divine Law completely written in their Reason (rom 2:15).

fws

SG

You are right though about part of this. And I know you sensed what was missing in what I said. the government is all Law. And their job is to enforce the Law without respect to persons , status, race, ethnicity, and some even say, sexual orientation….

So where is mercy in this you need to ask. And yes SG, mercy is required by God even in actions by the Government. To do Justice without mercy even pagans see as a Miscarriage of Justice. This is obvious.

We have traditionally called this “Judicial discretion”. We deliberately write laws to allow Judges to modify their application of the Law according to circumstances. Three strikes laws and mandatory sentencing is an attempt to curb what is seen as an excess of mercy by… totally eliminating mercy!

it is a historical fact that the executive branch has the power to exercise mercy. Obama could have simply pardoned each of the cases he is treating by executive order! This would have been perfectly legal! He chose not to do that. Wisely I think.

So why did the architects of our law allow for pardons that utterly and most completely and definitively circumvent the legislative and even the judicial branch? Ask yourself that? they understood the balance between justice and mercy. Even pagans know this SG since they have the Divine Law completely written in their Reason (rom 2:15).

fws

SG

fact: Justices routinely write law totally independent of the need for congress to approve of this writing of Law. it is called “case law” and “precident”. The supremes can even override congress or the executive branch here.

And the executive branch does indeed have the same authority to “write law” in the form of bureaucratic requirements. In california, for example, if one is on medicare, one is require , by the executive regulation and not legislative law, to report if one leaves the state for more than 7 days. This is not Law but yet it has the full force of Law. until it is challenged as unconstitutional if someone wants to bother with that….

fws

SG

fact: Justices routinely write law totally independent of the need for congress to approve of this writing of Law. it is called “case law” and “precident”. The supremes can even override congress or the executive branch here.

And the executive branch does indeed have the same authority to “write law” in the form of bureaucratic requirements. In california, for example, if one is on medicare, one is require , by the executive regulation and not legislative law, to report if one leaves the state for more than 7 days. This is not Law but yet it has the full force of Law. until it is challenged as unconstitutional if someone wants to bother with that….

fws

sg @ 75

yes all are to do justice and mercy.

Your question though is not that. It is about who gets to enforce that. you? no. as a voter? no. What is your vocation? Are you a judge or legislator or governor? then perhaps yes!

YOUR duty in YOUR vocation is to suffer the Law to be grinding you down (latin “contrition”) to passively let that happen in you. And your aim is to have that work result in concrete acts that anyone can judge to be mercy, that is, to do for other
is the opposite of what they deserve to get. That is YOUR work SG.

The Bible forbids you to meddle in the grinding down of others unless God calls you to do it. Vocation. Parent. Judge. etc.

Take off the tshirt you have on backwards and put it on right. You have both sides exactly right. But you are applying them in the reverse of what God gives you permission and authority to do.

fws

sg @ 75

yes all are to do justice and mercy.

Your question though is not that. It is about who gets to enforce that. you? no. as a voter? no. What is your vocation? Are you a judge or legislator or governor? then perhaps yes!

YOUR duty in YOUR vocation is to suffer the Law to be grinding you down (latin “contrition”) to passively let that happen in you. And your aim is to have that work result in concrete acts that anyone can judge to be mercy, that is, to do for other
is the opposite of what they deserve to get. That is YOUR work SG.

The Bible forbids you to meddle in the grinding down of others unless God calls you to do it. Vocation. Parent. Judge. etc.

Take off the tshirt you have on backwards and put it on right. You have both sides exactly right. But you are applying them in the reverse of what God gives you permission and authority to do.

fws

sg

But you are applying them in the reverse of what God gives you permission and authority to do.

bad phasing alert. You know what I mean here. OURS is to suffer and be mortified to do Mercy to OTHERS.

Old adam prefers to receive mercy FROM others and to enforce justice and the Law in OTHERS. If we are thinking this way, then this is the voice of our sinful Old Adam. it is to make ourselves powerful in receiving mercy and enforcing justice.

We are to “suffer” both to be done to us unless we are called into an office that requires us to be an instrument of justice.

fws

sg

But you are applying them in the reverse of what God gives you permission and authority to do.

bad phasing alert. You know what I mean here. OURS is to suffer and be mortified to do Mercy to OTHERS.

Old adam prefers to receive mercy FROM others and to enforce justice and the Law in OTHERS. If we are thinking this way, then this is the voice of our sinful Old Adam. it is to make ourselves powerful in receiving mercy and enforcing justice.

We are to “suffer” both to be done to us unless we are called into an office that requires us to be an instrument of justice.

Grace

reg @ 50

YOU POSTED: “I live in Massachusetts, which for all the jokes about it is in the top tier of states in education, health, low gun violence, low crime, lower divorce rates, less children born out of wedlock, higher incomes, less unemployment, etc. and in the middle of the pack on taxes (surprise!). (We have problems too though-from corruption, to lack of accountability, etc.)“

reg, everything I’ve BOLDED above applies to where I live. High education, some of the best health and hospitals, higher income, and much less divorce then other areas.

The discussion is about illegal aliens, the problems they present, their lack of honesty, integrity – the fact their children believe they have rights because their parents have broken the laws, cheated, lied, and taken what isn’t theirs – the children you’re concerned with support their parents unlawful behavior.

The situation as many of us see it is this; they were raised differently, whether they are the ones who came here illigally, or the children. They don’t have the same values nor do they consider lying and cheating to be wrong. It’s a matter of taking what isn’t theirs, and then wanting it to be lawful.

Unless you live where some of do, you can’t speak on this issue with any educated background on the isssue. It’s a difficult situation, the envy of those who are citizens is accute, that’s why they choose to show NO RESPECT by coming into our communities, urinating on the lawns, and into the cypress trees. It’s a joke for them. Watching a male, from my office window (just last week) pull down his pants, and then have a bowel movement. All done within minutes and then running, jumping into his truck and driving away.

Grace

reg @ 50

YOU POSTED: “I live in Massachusetts, which for all the jokes about it is in the top tier of states in education, health, low gun violence, low crime, lower divorce rates, less children born out of wedlock, higher incomes, less unemployment, etc. and in the middle of the pack on taxes (surprise!). (We have problems too though-from corruption, to lack of accountability, etc.)“

reg, everything I’ve BOLDED above applies to where I live. High education, some of the best health and hospitals, higher income, and much less divorce then other areas.

The discussion is about illegal aliens, the problems they present, their lack of honesty, integrity – the fact their children believe they have rights because their parents have broken the laws, cheated, lied, and taken what isn’t theirs – the children you’re concerned with support their parents unlawful behavior.

The situation as many of us see it is this; they were raised differently, whether they are the ones who came here illigally, or the children. They don’t have the same values nor do they consider lying and cheating to be wrong. It’s a matter of taking what isn’t theirs, and then wanting it to be lawful.

Unless you live where some of do, you can’t speak on this issue with any educated background on the isssue. It’s a difficult situation, the envy of those who are citizens is accute, that’s why they choose to show NO RESPECT by coming into our communities, urinating on the lawns, and into the cypress trees. It’s a joke for them. Watching a male, from my office window (just last week) pull down his pants, and then have a bowel movement. All done within minutes and then running, jumping into his truck and driving away.

Grace

Regarding my post at 83

Sorry for all the spelling errors.

Grace

Regarding my post at 83

Sorry for all the spelling errors.

Susan

@ reg

Fallacious diatribe.

@ fws

I well know that you like to pontificate on theology. And now it appears, to tell others how to fulfill the vocation of citizen. Quite heady stuff.

Susan

@ reg

Fallacious diatribe.

@ fws

I well know that you like to pontificate on theology. And now it appears, to tell others how to fulfill the vocation of citizen. Quite heady stuff.

Grace

reg 76

Susan did not make a “cheap shot” as you call it. Where are you when all the shots are taken against Romans 1? – and any and all of us who oppose homosexuality as a sin, – while it’s stated that it isn’t “per se” ?

Grace

reg 76

Susan did not make a “cheap shot” as you call it. Where are you when all the shots are taken against Romans 1? – and any and all of us who oppose homosexuality as a sin, – while it’s stated that it isn’t “per se” ?

fws

susan @ 85

It is what the Lutheran Confessions teach about the Law and Vocation. Nothing at all more or less. I am just repeating what they say.

If you are not Lutheran than you wouldn’t get it and that is ok.

fws

susan @ 85

It is what the Lutheran Confessions teach about the Law and Vocation. Nothing at all more or less. I am just repeating what they say.

If you are not Lutheran than you wouldn’t get it and that is ok.

Susan

@fws

Apparently, since I am Lutheran, there is a disconnect here. And, since you have been repeatedly corrected by well respected Lutherans in the past and I’m confident in what I’ve been taught, I’ll bid you adieu. I have no desire to have a replay similar to the last one on homosexuality.

Susan

@fws

Apparently, since I am Lutheran, there is a disconnect here. And, since you have been repeatedly corrected by well respected Lutherans in the past and I’m confident in what I’ve been taught, I’ll bid you adieu. I have no desire to have a replay similar to the last one on homosexuality.

Grace

National Review Online

Are We in Revolutionary Times?

By Victor Davis Hanson
June 15, 2012 6:51 P.M

“Legally, President Obama has reiterated the principle that he can pick and choose which U.S. laws he wishes to enforce (see his decision to reverse the order of the Chrysler creditors, his decision not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, and his administration’s contempt for national-security confidentiality and Senate and House subpoenas to the attorney general). If one individual can decide to exempt nearly a million residents from the law — when he most certainly could not get the law amended or repealed through proper legislative or judicial action — then what can he not do? “

“Legally, President Obama has reiterated the principle that he can pick and choose which U.S. laws he wishes to enforce (see his decision to reverse the order of the Chrysler creditors, his decision not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, and his administration’s contempt for national-security confidentiality and Senate and House subpoenas to the attorney general). If one individual can decide to exempt nearly a million residents from the law — when he most certainly could not get the law amended or repealed through proper legislative or judicial action — then what can he not do? “

Below is the last few lines of the National Review Online, (see post 89) article:

Are We in Revolutionary Times?

“you can fairly conclude that Obama most certainly did not like the way the United States operated for the last 30 or so years, and has tried his best, through hook or crook, to change America in ways that simply were not possible through legislative or even judicial action. Give the president credit. He has thrown down the gauntlet and essentially boasted: This is my vision of the way the new America should work — and if you don’t like it, try stopping me in November, if you dare.”

Grace

Below is the last few lines of the National Review Online, (see post 89) article:

Are We in Revolutionary Times?

“you can fairly conclude that Obama most certainly did not like the way the United States operated for the last 30 or so years, and has tried his best, through hook or crook, to change America in ways that simply were not possible through legislative or even judicial action. Give the president credit. He has thrown down the gauntlet and essentially boasted: This is my vision of the way the new America should work — and if you don’t like it, try stopping me in November, if you dare.”

fws

susan @88

whatever Susan.

fws

susan @88

whatever Susan.

Grace

Just can’t help it!

I haven’t heard “whatever” in a very long time, except on this blog, by several posters. The uneducated teens, and older adults copied the snippy phrase for awhile, and then stopped. “Whatever” is a kid remark 😛 and an old one at that!

Grace

Just can’t help it!

I haven’t heard “whatever” in a very long time, except on this blog, by several posters. The uneducated teens, and older adults copied the snippy phrase for awhile, and then stopped. “Whatever” is a kid remark 😛 and an old one at that!

fws

grace:

stop being wierd.

fws

grace:

stop being wierd.

Grace

fws,

Ya can’t help it. You’ve used the same word over and over again to me. Is “WEIRD” one of your new favs, or are you basking in your new mask?

Thanks for a link to the well written article. One of the comments seemed to hit the mark:

In contrast to ideological coalition building on the right, the left has always relied on cobbling together a demographic coalition. Its inducements to one group may blatantly conflict with its promises to another, but despite the rhetoric of universality, Democrats always rely on persuading each constituency in turn that its interests will be privileged in the next round of government assistance and regulation.

Obama’s tactics are really only notable for their sheer brazenness.

Susan

@Grace

Thanks for a link to the well written article. One of the comments seemed to hit the mark:

In contrast to ideological coalition building on the right, the left has always relied on cobbling together a demographic coalition. Its inducements to one group may blatantly conflict with its promises to another, but despite the rhetoric of universality, Democrats always rely on persuading each constituency in turn that its interests will be privileged in the next round of government assistance and regulation.

Obama’s tactics are really only notable for their sheer brazenness.

reg

Susan and Grace,
I happen to think homosexuality is a sin too but my view of such behavior within the church is very different from my view of it in the world. See 1 Corinthians 5:9-13.
When, out of the blue, Susan said to FWS “I’m not confused about this anymore that I am confused about homosexuality.” She was saying sub rosa “FWS, you ignorant gay boy, since you are less than human I need not give your views any consideration whatsoever.” This was not a fallacious diatribe on my part., but on Susan’s. I am sure Susan would take umbrage if somebody responded to her opinions with a dismissive “what is it that time of the month again?” That quality is what her post @ 68 evinced.

reg

Susan and Grace,
I happen to think homosexuality is a sin too but my view of such behavior within the church is very different from my view of it in the world. See 1 Corinthians 5:9-13.
When, out of the blue, Susan said to FWS “I’m not confused about this anymore that I am confused about homosexuality.” She was saying sub rosa “FWS, you ignorant gay boy, since you are less than human I need not give your views any consideration whatsoever.” This was not a fallacious diatribe on my part., but on Susan’s. I am sure Susan would take umbrage if somebody responded to her opinions with a dismissive “what is it that time of the month again?” That quality is what her post @ 68 evinced.

Grace

reg @ 96

YOU WROTE: ‘.” She was saying sub rosa “FWS, you ignorant gay boy, since you are less than human I need not give your views any consideration whatsoever.”

reg, – making up a comment, and then attributing it to another person is sophomoric. Is that the way YOUR mind works, after all you’re the one who concocted the comment?

Grace

reg @ 96

YOU WROTE: ‘.” She was saying sub rosa “FWS, you ignorant gay boy, since you are less than human I need not give your views any consideration whatsoever.”

reg, – making up a comment, and then attributing it to another person is sophomoric. Is that the way YOUR mind works, after all you’re the one who concocted the comment?

Grace

Susan @ 95

You nailed it when you pointed out:

“In contrast to ideological coalition building on the right, the left has always relied on cobbling together a demographic coalition.”

BINGO – hispanic vote

Grace

Susan @ 95

You nailed it when you pointed out:

“In contrast to ideological coalition building on the right, the left has always relied on cobbling together a demographic coalition.”

BINGO – hispanic vote

fws

susan @ 95 @ grace @ 98

Yes. both sides do both, but as a general characterization that seems true and insightful as a distinction.

the Democratic backing of civil rights in the 60s was an exception to that. The democrats knew they would lose their southern constituency and so lose alot of power. This is why JFK was against doing anything even though RFK was pushing hard. And it is why LBJs championing of civil rights as the consumate politician was so remarkable. It was a case where a politician ignored his entire political instinct to do follow his conscience.

fws

susan @ 95 @ grace @ 98

Yes. both sides do both, but as a general characterization that seems true and insightful as a distinction.

the Democratic backing of civil rights in the 60s was an exception to that. The democrats knew they would lose their southern constituency and so lose alot of power. This is why JFK was against doing anything even though RFK was pushing hard. And it is why LBJs championing of civil rights as the consumate politician was so remarkable. It was a case where a politician ignored his entire political instinct to do follow his conscience.

Susan

@Grace

Just to be clear… it wasn’t my thought but a copy of one of the comments to the article by VDH that you linked. I thought it was a pretty accurate contrast too.

Susan

@Grace

Just to be clear… it wasn’t my thought but a copy of one of the comments to the article by VDH that you linked. I thought it was a pretty accurate contrast too.

Grace

Oh the mask one wears, and then changes the subject!

Grace

Oh the mask one wears, and then changes the subject!

Grace

Susan @ 100

I worded my response poorly – the part you posted was from the article, that’s true.

Grace

Susan @ 100

I worded my response poorly – the part you posted was from the article, that’s true.

kerner

Boy, there I was, reading earlier threads, and I missed this whole conversation.

Let me begin by saying that what Obama is doing here is in one way really insideous. He is undermining the whole concept of the rule of law by telling some people (who probaly should get some relief under the law) “Never mind law, or the rule of law. Your well being is tied to me personally. It is I, King Barak I, that protects you. Nothing I am doing will give you anything like legal status in the United States. And if anything happens to me, you’re all screwed. So all of you must do my bidding.”

All this in an obvious attempt to change the subject from what it SHOULD be: that Barak Obama has ruined the economy of this country so thoroughly, that ironically he has done more to discourage illegal immigration than any conservative could. He has reduced the United States to a point where it is not econically so much better than central America such that there are more illgals leaving the United States than entering it.

Of course, if the USA ever returns to a free market growth orientd system (which we will have to replace Pres. Obama to do), the laws of supply and demand will cause an increase in immigration whether we legalize it or not. But I digress.

What irks me most of all is that so many conservatives are falling for this. Do we say “Shut up Obama! We will not let you distract us from the way you have ruined the economic system and the way you are promoting yourself from president to king.” Oh no. Instead we start talking about immigrants and whether “they” are good or bad for the United States. Subject Changed. Mission accomplished, King Barak.

And the fact is, we do this only by making absurd generalities and flying in the face of conservative principles.

There is no “they”. There are hard working immigrants who want to adopt the American system of a free market and personal liberty and who should be given a chance to try, and there are immigrants who are criminals who are nothing but trouble. And a sane law would make some attempt to deferentiate between them.

And in no other context would conservatives be calling for yet greater regulation of business. In no other context would conservatives want to punish hard work and productivity. In no other context would conservatives be calling for giving the federal government the power to grant, or deny, permission to do honest work. In no other context would conservatives be in favor of telling businesses that they can’t hire the person who they believe is the best worker for the job. Those are statist, socialist, things to do, and it drives me crazy when conservative spokesmen fall into the trap that Obama has set for them, blowing off conservative principles in the process.

kerner

Boy, there I was, reading earlier threads, and I missed this whole conversation.

Let me begin by saying that what Obama is doing here is in one way really insideous. He is undermining the whole concept of the rule of law by telling some people (who probaly should get some relief under the law) “Never mind law, or the rule of law. Your well being is tied to me personally. It is I, King Barak I, that protects you. Nothing I am doing will give you anything like legal status in the United States. And if anything happens to me, you’re all screwed. So all of you must do my bidding.”

All this in an obvious attempt to change the subject from what it SHOULD be: that Barak Obama has ruined the economy of this country so thoroughly, that ironically he has done more to discourage illegal immigration than any conservative could. He has reduced the United States to a point where it is not econically so much better than central America such that there are more illgals leaving the United States than entering it.

Of course, if the USA ever returns to a free market growth orientd system (which we will have to replace Pres. Obama to do), the laws of supply and demand will cause an increase in immigration whether we legalize it or not. But I digress.

What irks me most of all is that so many conservatives are falling for this. Do we say “Shut up Obama! We will not let you distract us from the way you have ruined the economic system and the way you are promoting yourself from president to king.” Oh no. Instead we start talking about immigrants and whether “they” are good or bad for the United States. Subject Changed. Mission accomplished, King Barak.

And the fact is, we do this only by making absurd generalities and flying in the face of conservative principles.

There is no “they”. There are hard working immigrants who want to adopt the American system of a free market and personal liberty and who should be given a chance to try, and there are immigrants who are criminals who are nothing but trouble. And a sane law would make some attempt to deferentiate between them.

And in no other context would conservatives be calling for yet greater regulation of business. In no other context would conservatives want to punish hard work and productivity. In no other context would conservatives be calling for giving the federal government the power to grant, or deny, permission to do honest work. In no other context would conservatives be in favor of telling businesses that they can’t hire the person who they believe is the best worker for the job. Those are statist, socialist, things to do, and it drives me crazy when conservative spokesmen fall into the trap that Obama has set for them, blowing off conservative principles in the process.

reg

Grace,
you don’t know what “sub rosa” means, do you?

reg

Grace,
you don’t know what “sub rosa” means, do you?

Grace

Kerner,

I agree with much of what you say. I would however add – Obama has undermined the foundation of this country, I wouldn’t call the man King of anything, what Obama exhibits is a dictatorship, he being the dictator.

The big question I believe most everyone is ignoring is: Is it possible that Obama hates the U.S. ? If so, for how long? Everything this man has done has weakened our country, be it economic, morally, just for starters, and now this man wants to make liars, cheaters, thieves, law breakers legal –

Have the American people become so conditioned to immoral behavior, law breaking, drugs, lying and cheating, which have caused the citizens of this country to become all mushy over illegal aliens and their children? For the most part, children follow much of their parents values, – illegal aliens don’t give one care about honesty, their children learn it from their parents – that’s why many of their children are ranting over their parents not being given a free pass, so much for honesty. We need their parents as citizens?

Grace

Kerner,

I agree with much of what you say. I would however add – Obama has undermined the foundation of this country, I wouldn’t call the man King of anything, what Obama exhibits is a dictatorship, he being the dictator.

The big question I believe most everyone is ignoring is: Is it possible that Obama hates the U.S. ? If so, for how long? Everything this man has done has weakened our country, be it economic, morally, just for starters, and now this man wants to make liars, cheaters, thieves, law breakers legal –

Have the American people become so conditioned to immoral behavior, law breaking, drugs, lying and cheating, which have caused the citizens of this country to become all mushy over illegal aliens and their children? For the most part, children follow much of their parents values, – illegal aliens don’t give one care about honesty, their children learn it from their parents – that’s why many of their children are ranting over their parents not being given a free pass, so much for honesty. We need their parents as citizens?

Grace

reg @ 104

Don’t flatter yourself, “sub rosa” 😆

Grace

reg @ 104

Don’t flatter yourself, “sub rosa” 😆

reg

Woody Guthrie 1948:
The crops are all in and the peaches are rotting
The oranges are filed in their creosote dumps
They’re flying ’em back to the Mexico border
To take all their money to wade back again
Goodbye to my Juan, farewell Roselita
Adios mes amigos, Jesus e Maria
You won’t have a name when you ride the big airplane
All they will call you will be deportees
My father’s own father, he waded that river
They took all the money he made in his life
It’s six hundred miles to the Mexico border
And they chased them like rustlers, like outlaws, like thieves
The skyplane caught fire over Los Gatos Canyon
The great ball of fire it shook all our hills
Who are these dear friends who are falling like dry leaves?
Radio said, “They are just deportees”
Is this the best way we can grow our big orchards?
Is this the best way we can raise our good crops?
To fall like dry leaves and rot on out topsoil
And be known by no names except “deportees”

reg

Woody Guthrie 1948:
The crops are all in and the peaches are rotting
The oranges are filed in their creosote dumps
They’re flying ’em back to the Mexico border
To take all their money to wade back again
Goodbye to my Juan, farewell Roselita
Adios mes amigos, Jesus e Maria
You won’t have a name when you ride the big airplane
All they will call you will be deportees
My father’s own father, he waded that river
They took all the money he made in his life
It’s six hundred miles to the Mexico border
And they chased them like rustlers, like outlaws, like thieves
The skyplane caught fire over Los Gatos Canyon
The great ball of fire it shook all our hills
Who are these dear friends who are falling like dry leaves?
Radio said, “They are just deportees”
Is this the best way we can grow our big orchards?
Is this the best way we can raise our good crops?
To fall like dry leaves and rot on out topsoil
And be known by no names except “deportees”

Grace

The song above, has nothing to do with the problem of illegal aliens of today. It’s a comouflage to disguise the problems today, affecting mostly the border states.

The 1930’s Depression, WW2 had much to do bringing immigrants to this country to work, and then asking them to leave. It was a rough time in this country, there were few jobs, and a large number of men had gone to war to defend not only the U.S. but those in Europe. When the men returned, they needed to work.

The plane crash in Los Gatos Canyon was unfortunate – 28 migrant farm workers and 4 Americans died in the plane crash.

There is much more to the story then a tune written sixty four (64) years ago – it’s not applicable to today’s situation. Not even close.

Grace

The song above, has nothing to do with the problem of illegal aliens of today. It’s a comouflage to disguise the problems today, affecting mostly the border states.

The 1930’s Depression, WW2 had much to do bringing immigrants to this country to work, and then asking them to leave. It was a rough time in this country, there were few jobs, and a large number of men had gone to war to defend not only the U.S. but those in Europe. When the men returned, they needed to work.

The plane crash in Los Gatos Canyon was unfortunate – 28 migrant farm workers and 4 Americans died in the plane crash.

There is much more to the story then a tune written sixty four (64) years ago – it’s not applicable to today’s situation. Not even close.

fws

kerner @ 103 & reg @107

very nice. Conservatives who are tilting back to a proper balance between justice and the mercy that is supposed to be it’s byproduct.

Justice without mercy is only half-righteousness. It is a miscarriage of justice. But also you are right that a government that does not follow the rules of justice will result in chaos rather than mercy.

fws

kerner @ 103 & reg @107

very nice. Conservatives who are tilting back to a proper balance between justice and the mercy that is supposed to be it’s byproduct.

Justice without mercy is only half-righteousness. It is a miscarriage of justice. But also you are right that a government that does not follow the rules of justice will result in chaos rather than mercy.

Grace

I believe strongly; an illegal, giving birth to a child in the United States, would not constitute the child as a citizen of the U.S. but instead, be just as illegal as the mother.

The laws need to be changed regarding children born to illegal aliens. The situation needs ATTENTION.

Grace

I believe strongly; an illegal, giving birth to a child in the United States, would not constitute the child as a citizen of the U.S. but instead, be just as illegal as the mother.

The laws need to be changed regarding children born to illegal aliens. The situation needs ATTENTION.

There is no malice and no injury to a person who is deported. Just like kids who come to visit my kids at my house eventually go home. I am not abusing them when I send them home. They belong there. They may like being at my house and drinking my sodas and watching my cable, but they still have to go. There is no abuse. There is no mercy required of me because sending them home does not constitute abuse.

Now if you really want to talk about abuse, you will have to think of those who abuse illegals in their employ and the citizens abused by illegals. We sure could use some mercy from those illicit employers and the illegals who abuse citizens. That is the mercy we need.

There is no malice and no injury to a person who is deported. Just like kids who come to visit my kids at my house eventually go home. I am not abusing them when I send them home. They belong there. They may like being at my house and drinking my sodas and watching my cable, but they still have to go. There is no abuse. There is no mercy required of me because sending them home does not constitute abuse.

Now if you really want to talk about abuse, you will have to think of those who abuse illegals in their employ and the citizens abused by illegals. We sure could use some mercy from those illicit employers and the illegals who abuse citizens. That is the mercy we need.

kerner

sg:

As far back as @10 you said:
“Do you think that things will ever get better down there considering that the people who live there are either unwilling or unable to improve their own situation? And how do we benefit from immigration of people who are unwilling and unable to effect positive change on their own?”

Because all those Jewish refugees should have gone back “home” to Nazi Germany and straightened it out. How could we have benefited by allowing those Jewish refugees to land when they were
‘unable or unwilling” to effect positive change in Nazi Germany “on their own”?

And FDR upheld your principles of “democracy”, too. It would have caused him political problems if he had let the Jewish refugees land so it was clearly the “right” thing to refuse them.

For that matter, in a much less extreme case, by your logic the LCMS shouldn’t exist, because it was formed by Lutherans who refused to unite with the Prussian reformed churh as required by the Prussian government. They should have stayed in Prussia where they “belonged” and effected positive change, and none of our churches would be here.

And for that matter, all Europeans should have stayed in their countries and effected “positive change” and left the Indians alone. Because Europe is where white people “belong”, right.

kerner

sg:

As far back as @10 you said:
“Do you think that things will ever get better down there considering that the people who live there are either unwilling or unable to improve their own situation? And how do we benefit from immigration of people who are unwilling and unable to effect positive change on their own?”

Because all those Jewish refugees should have gone back “home” to Nazi Germany and straightened it out. How could we have benefited by allowing those Jewish refugees to land when they were
‘unable or unwilling” to effect positive change in Nazi Germany “on their own”?

And FDR upheld your principles of “democracy”, too. It would have caused him political problems if he had let the Jewish refugees land so it was clearly the “right” thing to refuse them.

For that matter, in a much less extreme case, by your logic the LCMS shouldn’t exist, because it was formed by Lutherans who refused to unite with the Prussian reformed churh as required by the Prussian government. They should have stayed in Prussia where they “belonged” and effected positive change, and none of our churches would be here.

And for that matter, all Europeans should have stayed in their countries and effected “positive change” and left the Indians alone. Because Europe is where white people “belong”, right.

Europeans did effect positive change in their home countries. That is why Europe is a nice place and people from all over the world are trying to get in. Also, legal immigrants are not the same as illegal immigrants. But you know that. We already welcome tons of legal immigrant every year. No problem. We are not talking about any of the straw men you offer.

Europeans did effect positive change in their home countries. That is why Europe is a nice place and people from all over the world are trying to get in. Also, legal immigrants are not the same as illegal immigrants. But you know that. We already welcome tons of legal immigrant every year. No problem. We are not talking about any of the straw men you offer.

GAH! Long Thread.
@sg 56
“…deport them to their own country…”
Yeah, what I’m saying is that many people were brought here illegally as infants. America IS their country. It’s all they’ve ever known. Of course, I don’t have any statistically relevant sample size or data, so my experience is anecdotal, but I worked with half a dozen young men who fit into this exact category. One of them was my boss. Their paperwork wasn’t in order but they were no more Mexican than I am. And I speak Spanish better than some of them.

GAH! Long Thread.
@sg 56
“…deport them to their own country…”
Yeah, what I’m saying is that many people were brought here illegally as infants. America IS their country. It’s all they’ve ever known. Of course, I don’t have any statistically relevant sample size or data, so my experience is anecdotal, but I worked with half a dozen young men who fit into this exact category. One of them was my boss. Their paperwork wasn’t in order but they were no more Mexican than I am. And I speak Spanish better than some of them.

Grace

Kerner @ 112

I am shocked at YOUR REMARKS above.

FDR was Dutch. His real name was Van Rosevelt –

What he chose to do was evil.

The Jewish people cannot be compared to those who come here illegally from below the border.

The Jewish people are some of the most successful people in this country, and through out the world. All you have to do is look around. Some of the most talented physcians are Jewish, add to that Scientist.

JEALOUSY and ENVY!

I wonder how much there is today?

You had the nerve to post:

“Because all those Jewish refugees should have gone back “home” to Nazi Germany and straightened it out. How could we have benefited by allowing those Jewish refugees to land when they were
‘unable or unwilling” to effect positive change in Nazi Germany “on their own”?

They were fleeing the death camps, the Germans who couldn’t wait to gas them – as for their children the most horrific surgeries to demasculate the boys. How could anyone do such a thing?

How could you post such an ugly agreement with FDR?

Jesus Christ our LORD and Savior, born of a Jewish mother, born from the line of King David a Jew.

Grace

Kerner @ 112

I am shocked at YOUR REMARKS above.

FDR was Dutch. His real name was Van Rosevelt –

What he chose to do was evil.

The Jewish people cannot be compared to those who come here illegally from below the border.

The Jewish people are some of the most successful people in this country, and through out the world. All you have to do is look around. Some of the most talented physcians are Jewish, add to that Scientist.

JEALOUSY and ENVY!

I wonder how much there is today?

You had the nerve to post:

“Because all those Jewish refugees should have gone back “home” to Nazi Germany and straightened it out. How could we have benefited by allowing those Jewish refugees to land when they were
‘unable or unwilling” to effect positive change in Nazi Germany “on their own”?

John, are you arguing for squatter’s rights? What is the point? I know people who grew up entirely in foreign countries because their parents had jobs there or were missionaries etc. When their parents left, so did they because they could not get permission from that country to stay. One friend of mine wanted to stay in Australia having lived there all his life, gone to school there and all of his friends were there. Australia told him, no. As a US citizen with no permission to work in Australia, he had to come back here and he didn’t know anyone here. His sister married an Aussie and stayed there and his parents moved to another foreign country. He had to come to the US and find a job all by himself. After several years, he married an Australian woman and after 10 years in the US, he went back, legally, because she got a job as a nurse down there. Same thing happened to a German woman I know who grew up here. She had to go through tons of paperwork and went back to Germany as an adult. She ended up back here because her husband got a job here as a college professor.

These aren’t horrible gut wrenching stories that we should take to the streets to end such injustice. It is just plain old rule of law. Parents know that when they take jobs in foreign countries.

John, are you arguing for squatter’s rights? What is the point? I know people who grew up entirely in foreign countries because their parents had jobs there or were missionaries etc. When their parents left, so did they because they could not get permission from that country to stay. One friend of mine wanted to stay in Australia having lived there all his life, gone to school there and all of his friends were there. Australia told him, no. As a US citizen with no permission to work in Australia, he had to come back here and he didn’t know anyone here. His sister married an Aussie and stayed there and his parents moved to another foreign country. He had to come to the US and find a job all by himself. After several years, he married an Australian woman and after 10 years in the US, he went back, legally, because she got a job as a nurse down there. Same thing happened to a German woman I know who grew up here. She had to go through tons of paperwork and went back to Germany as an adult. She ended up back here because her husband got a job here as a college professor.

These aren’t horrible gut wrenching stories that we should take to the streets to end such injustice. It is just plain old rule of law. Parents know that when they take jobs in foreign countries.

kerner

Grace:

I was being sarcastic. I was showing what happens when people act as though sending people “home” is no big deal, when there are often terrible things going on in their so-called “home” countries.

It was meant to be shocking, but not in the way you have taken it.

Just saying “hey, wherever people are born is “where they belong”, is superficial.

I DON’T agree with FDR. I was trying to show how terrible that “just send ’em home and let then fix their own countries” logic really is. Apparently you understood that much anyway.

kerner

Grace:

I was being sarcastic. I was showing what happens when people act as though sending people “home” is no big deal, when there are often terrible things going on in their so-called “home” countries.

It was meant to be shocking, but not in the way you have taken it.

Just saying “hey, wherever people are born is “where they belong”, is superficial.

I DON’T agree with FDR. I was trying to show how terrible that “just send ’em home and let then fix their own countries” logic really is. Apparently you understood that much anyway.

There are many multinational companies that transfer people all over the world. The children of these people enter the countries legally. Often that country is all they know. Yet, they cannot stay when their parents leave unless they get permission, and very often they don’t get permission.

There are many multinational companies that transfer people all over the world. The children of these people enter the countries legally. Often that country is all they know. Yet, they cannot stay when their parents leave unless they get permission, and very often they don’t get permission.

kerner

sg:

A woman as intelligent as you are cannot be that obtuse. You of course understand that being compelled to return to the United States is no hardship at all. Being compelled to return to Nazi Germany is a life threatening disaster. And being compelled to return to a counrty with an economy controlled by an oligarchical government that is corrupt and protects a rich elite while keeping most of the people in grinding poverty (most of Latin America) is somewhere in between, at least if you don’t come from the rich elite.

That you pretend that there is no distinction is unworthy of you.

kerner

sg:

A woman as intelligent as you are cannot be that obtuse. You of course understand that being compelled to return to the United States is no hardship at all. Being compelled to return to Nazi Germany is a life threatening disaster. And being compelled to return to a counrty with an economy controlled by an oligarchical government that is corrupt and protects a rich elite while keeping most of the people in grinding poverty (most of Latin America) is somewhere in between, at least if you don’t come from the rich elite.

And being compelled to return to a counrty with an economy controlled by an oligarchical government that is corrupt and protects a rich elite while keeping most of the people in grinding poverty (most of Latin America) is somewhere in between, at least if you don’t come from the rich elite.

Silly. Anyone who has lived here has at least gone through the public school system and could get a decent job back in their home country. We may see some schools as “underperforming” but compared to the scores on PISA of similar populations elsewhere, our low performers are still outscoring the average in many of their home countries.

And being compelled to return to a counrty with an economy controlled by an oligarchical government that is corrupt and protects a rich elite while keeping most of the people in grinding poverty (most of Latin America) is somewhere in between, at least if you don’t come from the rich elite.

Silly. Anyone who has lived here has at least gone through the public school system and could get a decent job back in their home country. We may see some schools as “underperforming” but compared to the scores on PISA of similar populations elsewhere, our low performers are still outscoring the average in many of their home countries.

kerner

Silly back at you. How do you know what the opportunities for a “decent” job are in, say, Honduras? Especially if your Spanish is lousy and you have no connections among the ruling elite. Or do you know what the standard of living is that a so-called “decent” job can provide a person with? But what makes you think they have a merit system (based on high test scores or anything similar) in Latin America or the Carribean? Do you really think you could have the same life you have now if you were deported to Haiti?

kerner

Silly back at you. How do you know what the opportunities for a “decent” job are in, say, Honduras? Especially if your Spanish is lousy and you have no connections among the ruling elite. Or do you know what the standard of living is that a so-called “decent” job can provide a person with? But what makes you think they have a merit system (based on high test scores or anything similar) in Latin America or the Carribean? Do you really think you could have the same life you have now if you were deported to Haiti?

So should we import the entire population of Haiti? what is your point? Why should a Haitian who came here illegally get to stay while a law abiding Haitian willing to go through the process can’t come? One of my friends and all of her siblings and parents came here legally from Haiti. If they could do it, so can others. The cheaters need to be deported.

So should we import the entire population of Haiti? what is your point? Why should a Haitian who came here illegally get to stay while a law abiding Haitian willing to go through the process can’t come? One of my friends and all of her siblings and parents came here legally from Haiti. If they could do it, so can others. The cheaters need to be deported.

Grace

Kerner @ 117

KERNER POSTED: “I was being sarcastic. I was showing what happens when people act as though sending people “home” is no big deal, when there are often terrible things going on in their so-called “home” countries.
It was meant to be shocking, but not in the way you have taken it.”

BULL, that was not “sarcastic” as you now claim, it was nasty. The last paragraph is a two edged sword, of which you’ve tried to manipulate your disgusting remarks. NO HOME RUN.

There is no room for “sarcastic” when 6 million people were gassed, slaughtered as a result of JEALOUSY against the Jewish people. It began in Germany, through earlier hatred, instilled within the German people – The few Germans who had the spine to stand up against such envy are to be admired, the rest, being the majority are anti-Semitic, one can still SEE it today, it’s not hidden.

“Just saying “hey, wherever people are born is “where they belong”, is superficial.

I DON’T agree with FDR. I was trying to show how terrible that “just send ‘em home and let then fix their own countries” logic really is. Apparently you understood that much anyway.

You haven’t convinced me of anything you posted above, it’s all a SHAM – One can always say what they REALLY MEAN, and then later PLEAD, “sarcastic” to take them off the fence post. Your rant is one I won’t forget – all in the name of SARCASTIC –

Grace

Kerner @ 117

KERNER POSTED: “I was being sarcastic. I was showing what happens when people act as though sending people “home” is no big deal, when there are often terrible things going on in their so-called “home” countries.
It was meant to be shocking, but not in the way you have taken it.”

BULL, that was not “sarcastic” as you now claim, it was nasty. The last paragraph is a two edged sword, of which you’ve tried to manipulate your disgusting remarks. NO HOME RUN.

There is no room for “sarcastic” when 6 million people were gassed, slaughtered as a result of JEALOUSY against the Jewish people. It began in Germany, through earlier hatred, instilled within the German people – The few Germans who had the spine to stand up against such envy are to be admired, the rest, being the majority are anti-Semitic, one can still SEE it today, it’s not hidden.

“Just saying “hey, wherever people are born is “where they belong”, is superficial.

I DON’T agree with FDR. I was trying to show how terrible that “just send ‘em home and let then fix their own countries” logic really is. Apparently you understood that much anyway.

You haven’t convinced me of anything you posted above, it’s all a SHAM – One can always say what they REALLY MEAN, and then later PLEAD, “sarcastic” to take them off the fence post. Your rant is one I won’t forget – all in the name of SARCASTIC –

Grace

Kerner @ 119

YOU WROTE to sg: “A woman as intelligent as you are cannot be that obtuse.”

A man, with a law degree, as you claim to have, can take that remark and SLIP YOUR NAME into the entire sentence.

That is one of the most “SILLY” comments a man can make to a woman – when it’s done, it proves they are still stuck back in the 50’s or perhaps any era, when men want to pound their chests and announce how “intelligent” a woman is, and in the same sentence blurt out “obtuse” in connection with her thought process, or abilities are conserned. 😆

Grace

Kerner @ 119

YOU WROTE to sg: “A woman as intelligent as you are cannot be that obtuse.”

A man, with a law degree, as you claim to have, can take that remark and SLIP YOUR NAME into the entire sentence.

That is one of the most “SILLY” comments a man can make to a woman – when it’s done, it proves they are still stuck back in the 50’s or perhaps any era, when men want to pound their chests and announce how “intelligent” a woman is, and in the same sentence blurt out “obtuse” in connection with her thought process, or abilities are conserned. 😆

kerner

One point at a time, sg. You have been carrying on that there is never any hardship of any kind involved in sending someone back to the country of his/her birth. Because there is never any hardship involved, you argue, mercy should not enter into our decision making.

You said @111:
“I don’t get the mercy angle. There is no malice and no injury to a person who is deported. Just like kids who come to visit my kids at my house eventually go home. I am not abusing them when I send them home.”

But the only way you can argue that is by turning a blind eye to conditions in the home country. And incedently, you ARE abusing children if you send them home when if you know they will be abused when they get home.

My point is the law should, and in some cases (but not enough cases) does, take home country conditions into account and thereby exercise mercy, especially to people whose illegal presence here was not theiir own decision.

The law should also take into account what kind of people they are and are likely to become. Are they gangsters, or are they high school or even college graduates, or military veterans, who are or are likely to be productive taxpayers? Those things should be considered under the law as well.

You just want to ignore all that and have the law send everyone back regardless of who they are and what they can contribute. Now THAT’S silly.

Incedently, how did your Haitian friend come here “legally”? There are only 3 basic ways to do it. By being related to an American citizen, by having special job skills so rare that no American has them in a particular locale, or by being a refugee (unmercifully bad country conditions at home). A lot of Hatians took the refugee/asylum route, which is to come here illegally and then ask permission to stay because of persecution back “home”. Is that what your friend did?

kerner

One point at a time, sg. You have been carrying on that there is never any hardship of any kind involved in sending someone back to the country of his/her birth. Because there is never any hardship involved, you argue, mercy should not enter into our decision making.

You said @111:
“I don’t get the mercy angle. There is no malice and no injury to a person who is deported. Just like kids who come to visit my kids at my house eventually go home. I am not abusing them when I send them home.”

But the only way you can argue that is by turning a blind eye to conditions in the home country. And incedently, you ARE abusing children if you send them home when if you know they will be abused when they get home.

My point is the law should, and in some cases (but not enough cases) does, take home country conditions into account and thereby exercise mercy, especially to people whose illegal presence here was not theiir own decision.

The law should also take into account what kind of people they are and are likely to become. Are they gangsters, or are they high school or even college graduates, or military veterans, who are or are likely to be productive taxpayers? Those things should be considered under the law as well.

You just want to ignore all that and have the law send everyone back regardless of who they are and what they can contribute. Now THAT’S silly.

Incedently, how did your Haitian friend come here “legally”? There are only 3 basic ways to do it. By being related to an American citizen, by having special job skills so rare that no American has them in a particular locale, or by being a refugee (unmercifully bad country conditions at home). A lot of Hatians took the refugee/asylum route, which is to come here illegally and then ask permission to stay because of persecution back “home”. Is that what your friend did?

Okay, honestly I don’t know about her immigration to the US from Haiti, other than it was in the 1960’s. I also don’t know when her other siblings came. But none of that changes the fact that we don’t have to let people in. And we can send back anyone who is here illegally. As for asylum seekers, they get permission, then they come. Another friend of mine did that. She came from Bosnia. We are generous about taking people.

As for terrible conditions in other countries, there are terrible conditions here, too, in terrible neighborhoods where these folks are more likely to end up than you and I are.

Okay, honestly I don’t know about her immigration to the US from Haiti, other than it was in the 1960’s. I also don’t know when her other siblings came. But none of that changes the fact that we don’t have to let people in. And we can send back anyone who is here illegally. As for asylum seekers, they get permission, then they come. Another friend of mine did that. She came from Bosnia. We are generous about taking people.

As for terrible conditions in other countries, there are terrible conditions here, too, in terrible neighborhoods where these folks are more likely to end up than you and I are.

So, no, I don’t buy the argument that in general deporting them equals abuse. That doesn’t mean that every single one would be as safe back in his home country, but most probably would.

Grace

Kerner,

Have you been to Central or South America? Have you traveled outside the jazzy areas, those where the masses live? Did you visit the open markets?

Have you stayed, ( not spent a few hours here or there from a cruise ship) in any Caribbean Island? If so which ones, and how long? Did you go past the hot hotel you stayed in? – did you go to any of the open markets within some of the towns?

Do any Hatians live in your area? Have you ever been in close contact with those from Haiti in this country, living in this country? I’m not speaking of mission trips, or those who come just to visit.

Grace

Kerner,

Have you been to Central or South America? Have you traveled outside the jazzy areas, those where the masses live? Did you visit the open markets?

Have you stayed, ( not spent a few hours here or there from a cruise ship) in any Caribbean Island? If so which ones, and how long? Did you go past the hot hotel you stayed in? – did you go to any of the open markets within some of the towns?

Do any Hatians live in your area? Have you ever been in close contact with those from Haiti in this country, living in this country? I’m not speaking of mission trips, or those who come just to visit.

Grace

Those who don’t live in the border states, such as sg and myself, know next to nothing of what the problems are, they are only guessing – and the POOREST of GUESSES they are.

Kerner, start talking about something you really understand. It isn’t illegal immigrants from south of the border.

Grace

Those who don’t live in the border states, such as sg and myself, know next to nothing of what the problems are, they are only guessing – and the POOREST of GUESSES they are.

Kerner, start talking about something you really understand. It isn’t illegal immigrants from south of the border.

kerner

“As for asylum seekers, they get permission, then they come. ”

That is not universally true. Some of them get permission and then come. Some of them get permission by lying (“I’m only coming for a temporary visit.” wink wink) and immediately ask to stay. And some of them, like many Haitians and most Cubans since 1960, get on a boat and sneak in, and then ask permission to stay. The law of political asylum focuses on the threat back “home”, not on how they got into this country.

But what the law does not take into account is economic hardship, and in some cases at least, it should more than it does. The law will protect someone who is being persecuted by the government for his race or religion, or for being gay. The law will not protect someone who is living in, or who would have to live in, abject poverty because of an economic system controlled by corrupt elites.

But a funny thing about our immigration laws is how arbitrary they are. Between the 1924 and 1965, Asians could not legtally immigrate to the United States, but there were NO LIMITS on immigration from any country in the Western Hemisphere. Until 1965, anybody from Mexico, Cananda, South America or the Carribean could just apply for a visa, have a background check, and get cleared right away with almost no waiting. And the Republic survived somehow.

kerner

“As for asylum seekers, they get permission, then they come. ”

That is not universally true. Some of them get permission and then come. Some of them get permission by lying (“I’m only coming for a temporary visit.” wink wink) and immediately ask to stay. And some of them, like many Haitians and most Cubans since 1960, get on a boat and sneak in, and then ask permission to stay. The law of political asylum focuses on the threat back “home”, not on how they got into this country.

But what the law does not take into account is economic hardship, and in some cases at least, it should more than it does. The law will protect someone who is being persecuted by the government for his race or religion, or for being gay. The law will not protect someone who is living in, or who would have to live in, abject poverty because of an economic system controlled by corrupt elites.

But a funny thing about our immigration laws is how arbitrary they are. Between the 1924 and 1965, Asians could not legtally immigrate to the United States, but there were NO LIMITS on immigration from any country in the Western Hemisphere. Until 1965, anybody from Mexico, Cananda, South America or the Carribean could just apply for a visa, have a background check, and get cleared right away with almost no waiting. And the Republic survived somehow.

kerner

Grace:

I don’t know why you exclude mission trips, because that is the only time I have been to Mexico. When I did, I didn’t stay in a hot hotel. I stayed in a church with about 40 other people. The church was considered remarkable because it had 2 flush toilets, but the pipes would not have been up to code here. The pipes were the 1 inch kind that Americans use for sink drains. Because the pipes were so narrow, we were told not to put our toilet paper into the toilets because it would clog them (you threw the poilet paper into the waste basket). We were also told not to flush at all unless you had a bowel movement, so as not to waste water.

We went to slums to build a house for a homeless family. The house we built was really more like a garage by US standards. It had only 3 rooms on a concrete slab floor. It had electricity, but no plumbing and no bathroom. The family had an outhouse with no pit underneath it. The waste just dribbled down the hill behind the house. Six people were going to live in that house, and they seemed grateful to get it. The “house” next door was just a shack built of plywood scraps and other junk. The city delivered a 40 gallon drum of water to each house periodically, but I don’t know how long is was supposed to last. I’m not sure whether their access to electricity was legit. Somebody had run a beat up wire from the power lines overhead to the house, but I didn’t see any meters.

I actually know a lot of immigrants from latin America, the Carribean, Africa, Asia and Europe. None of them are Haitians, however. But I know the immigrant population here is not like it is there.

I know from this that the kind of poverty they have in most countries is practically unknown in the United States. American poor people are fat. Life in most countries is not the same as it is here.

kerner

Grace:

I don’t know why you exclude mission trips, because that is the only time I have been to Mexico. When I did, I didn’t stay in a hot hotel. I stayed in a church with about 40 other people. The church was considered remarkable because it had 2 flush toilets, but the pipes would not have been up to code here. The pipes were the 1 inch kind that Americans use for sink drains. Because the pipes were so narrow, we were told not to put our toilet paper into the toilets because it would clog them (you threw the poilet paper into the waste basket). We were also told not to flush at all unless you had a bowel movement, so as not to waste water.

We went to slums to build a house for a homeless family. The house we built was really more like a garage by US standards. It had only 3 rooms on a concrete slab floor. It had electricity, but no plumbing and no bathroom. The family had an outhouse with no pit underneath it. The waste just dribbled down the hill behind the house. Six people were going to live in that house, and they seemed grateful to get it. The “house” next door was just a shack built of plywood scraps and other junk. The city delivered a 40 gallon drum of water to each house periodically, but I don’t know how long is was supposed to last. I’m not sure whether their access to electricity was legit. Somebody had run a beat up wire from the power lines overhead to the house, but I didn’t see any meters.

I actually know a lot of immigrants from latin America, the Carribean, Africa, Asia and Europe. None of them are Haitians, however. But I know the immigrant population here is not like it is there.

I know from this that the kind of poverty they have in most countries is practically unknown in the United States. American poor people are fat. Life in most countries is not the same as it is here.

Grace

Kerner @ 131

YOU WROTE: “I don’t know why you exclude mission trips, because that is the only time I have been to Mexico. “

Mission trips don’t give the scope of problems south of the border. You live in Wisconsin, I live in Southern California – there is a big difference between the two states, not just distance, but multicultural differences, which are a daily reminder of how little you understand, regarding the situations we face.

Trips abroad are not for the most part “mission trips” they are trips to see how others live, without all the fluster of building, or doing the things people do when they go on “mission trips” – I’m not against them, but I don’t believe the participants understand the entire scope of the peoples, or how they got into the situation they are in. What those from the U.S. see is a a people who need help with the basics , as if the CITIZENS of these countries are incapable of seeing it for themselves. Do you understand what I’m saying?

One trip to Mexico is not an answer. I have been going to that country since I was 14 years old. I asked you lots of questions regarding Central and South American AND the Carabbean, which you have avoided answering. Why is that?

Do you know much about Central or South American and the drug trade? Have you traveled to rural areas, do you know more about the situation other than small pipes for a bathroom?

Did you ever ask yourself WHY the people you helped could not have built something better all by themselves? WHY they could not have built “out houses”? – those who came to this country so many centuries ago, understood the need for an OUT HOUSE. Do you honestly believe they needed you to help them understand a better way, – – which would mean digging a large hole in the earth, and then building a small shack above. My great, great, great grandparents understood this, way back when.

These people come here desiring work – they often chose to be gardeners. Strange how they know how to use a shove, dig holes for huge trees. Do you see my point?

When did they learn how to use a shovel?

Grace

Kerner @ 131

YOU WROTE: “I don’t know why you exclude mission trips, because that is the only time I have been to Mexico. “

Mission trips don’t give the scope of problems south of the border. You live in Wisconsin, I live in Southern California – there is a big difference between the two states, not just distance, but multicultural differences, which are a daily reminder of how little you understand, regarding the situations we face.

Trips abroad are not for the most part “mission trips” they are trips to see how others live, without all the fluster of building, or doing the things people do when they go on “mission trips” – I’m not against them, but I don’t believe the participants understand the entire scope of the peoples, or how they got into the situation they are in. What those from the U.S. see is a a people who need help with the basics , as if the CITIZENS of these countries are incapable of seeing it for themselves. Do you understand what I’m saying?

One trip to Mexico is not an answer. I have been going to that country since I was 14 years old. I asked you lots of questions regarding Central and South American AND the Carabbean, which you have avoided answering. Why is that?

Do you know much about Central or South American and the drug trade? Have you traveled to rural areas, do you know more about the situation other than small pipes for a bathroom?

Did you ever ask yourself WHY the people you helped could not have built something better all by themselves? WHY they could not have built “out houses”? – those who came to this country so many centuries ago, understood the need for an OUT HOUSE. Do you honestly believe they needed you to help them understand a better way, – – which would mean digging a large hole in the earth, and then building a small shack above. My great, great, great grandparents understood this, way back when.

These people come here desiring work – they often chose to be gardeners. Strange how they know how to use a shove, dig holes for huge trees. Do you see my point?

When did they learn how to use a shovel?

fws

Kerner +1

I am feelin you SG.
You would not know mercy if it slapped you in the face.
But mercy would never do that. Not even if you deserved it.

Mercy is to get the opposite of what we deserve.
It is the precise opposite of Justice.
Yet mercy cannot exist without Justice.

I am glad you admit that you don’t get the concept of mercy.
That is an excellent start.

fws

Kerner +1

I am feelin you SG.
You would not know mercy if it slapped you in the face.
But mercy would never do that. Not even if you deserved it.

Mercy is to get the opposite of what we deserve.
It is the precise opposite of Justice.
Yet mercy cannot exist without Justice.

I am glad you admit that you don’t get the concept of mercy.
That is an excellent start.

fws

SG

Ficticious conversation. A thought experiment:

Son to SG:

Mom, why are you so permissive and lenient to neighborhood boys? You dont enforce rules with them. You often give them a pass. Yet you are so strict with me. That isn’t fair!

SG to son:

Son, our job in life, until our Lord returns, is to exercise self discipline and self restraint. And the reason we do that is so we have extra stuff in our life. And then we are to use that extra stuff to do acts of mercy to others. This is to give others the opposite of what they have earned and deserved.

We leave enforcement of the Law and rules and justice to those God has publicly and officially and lawfully appointed to that task. I am not the parent of those other little boys. So my job is to show them mercy. It is not my concern to discipline them. That is the job of their parents. This is true, even though I do have a responsibility to exercise authority when those other boys are in our home. I am the ruler here God has appointed.

So why am I stricter with you? God has appointed me and chosen me to be your parent.
So I am responsible to always lay the rod next to the apple. And to encourage and teach you to choose wisely.

Fact: God WILL make you do mercy for others.

Your only choice in the matter is to decide whether you will do acts of mercy for others by chosing the apple or the rod.

You will keep the law voluntarily and with joy and get the apple as reward, or… you will refuse to do mercy for others and you will get the rod from God by means of punishment from me or the government when you are an adult or a supervisor at work, until you learn otherwise.

That is how your mom learned to get pleasure out of doing mercy for those other little boys.

I have felt the sting of the rod many times when I have refused to do mercy for others. So I have learned instead to reach for the apple by doing mercy voluntarily and by choice.

And my job is to apply the rod here at home so that you do not need an even bigger rod applied by those who can take your very life when you leave home and mom is no longer around.

fws

SG

Ficticious conversation. A thought experiment:

Son to SG:

Mom, why are you so permissive and lenient to neighborhood boys? You dont enforce rules with them. You often give them a pass. Yet you are so strict with me. That isn’t fair!

SG to son:

Son, our job in life, until our Lord returns, is to exercise self discipline and self restraint. And the reason we do that is so we have extra stuff in our life. And then we are to use that extra stuff to do acts of mercy to others. This is to give others the opposite of what they have earned and deserved.

We leave enforcement of the Law and rules and justice to those God has publicly and officially and lawfully appointed to that task. I am not the parent of those other little boys. So my job is to show them mercy. It is not my concern to discipline them. That is the job of their parents. This is true, even though I do have a responsibility to exercise authority when those other boys are in our home. I am the ruler here God has appointed.

So why am I stricter with you? God has appointed me and chosen me to be your parent.
So I am responsible to always lay the rod next to the apple. And to encourage and teach you to choose wisely.

Fact: God WILL make you do mercy for others.

Your only choice in the matter is to decide whether you will do acts of mercy for others by chosing the apple or the rod.

You will keep the law voluntarily and with joy and get the apple as reward, or… you will refuse to do mercy for others and you will get the rod from God by means of punishment from me or the government when you are an adult or a supervisor at work, until you learn otherwise.

That is how your mom learned to get pleasure out of doing mercy for those other little boys.

I have felt the sting of the rod many times when I have refused to do mercy for others. So I have learned instead to reach for the apple by doing mercy voluntarily and by choice.

And my job is to apply the rod here at home so that you do not need an even bigger rod applied by those who can take your very life when you leave home and mom is no longer around.

My point is that I don’t agree with your application of mercy in these cases. It seems like you are saying we should never enforce any law ever. I mean, how about a parking fine? Or is it too mean to penalize people for breaking any rule ever? Generally, but not absolutely, there is no harm or injury to a person in just sending him back to his home country. Remember, those countries are not wonderful because they are filled with the people who created and perpetuated those not wonderful conditions. In general, but not absolutely, they bring those same behaviors with them. If you get enough of them here, they will recreate those same conditions here.

My point is that I don’t agree with your application of mercy in these cases. It seems like you are saying we should never enforce any law ever. I mean, how about a parking fine? Or is it too mean to penalize people for breaking any rule ever? Generally, but not absolutely, there is no harm or injury to a person in just sending him back to his home country. Remember, those countries are not wonderful because they are filled with the people who created and perpetuated those not wonderful conditions. In general, but not absolutely, they bring those same behaviors with them. If you get enough of them here, they will recreate those same conditions here.

Deporting illegal aliens shows mercy to all of my neighbors who are citizens. It does no harm to the illegal alien. So, it is both just and merciful.

Patrick Kyle

Here is the gist of the preceding pro-illegal immigration comments:

Any support for enforcing immigration laws and deportation of ANYONE= mean, cruel, unjust, un-Christian (and un-Lutheran) and RACIST!

Whatever….

1.It is part of Mexico’s public policy to ship their poor and displaced to the US so they can send $$ back to Mexico.

2. Despite the Mexican Government’s loud protests that our immigration policy is unjust and RACIST, look into how illegal immigrants are treated in Mexico. They have absolutely no legal standing and and are raped, assaulted, and exploited with impunity. God help them if the Mexican authorities catch them. Their treatment is the same or worse.

3. Most other countries have a zero tolerance policy on illegal immigration. The ones that don’t (France, the Netherlands, other European countries) are seriously regretting this policy.

4. As a resident of a border state I can attest to the erosion of our quality of life brought on by the flood of illegal immigration. Crime, graffiti, overburdened municipalities and social services operating in the red. Unlicensed, uninsured illegal drivers causing car wrecks, then walking away scott free (if no injuries were caused) leaving the other driver and their insurance with the entire tab. I personally know several people to whom this has happened. I also bear this burden every month in the form of elevated auto insurance rates to cover these situations.

5. They are a huge burden on law enforcement agencies and jails.

6. All this support for amnesty and illegal immigration is a slap in the face of every immigrant who has come here legally and honored that process and a dilution of the benefits of citizenship in this country.

7. Amnesty rewards and positively re-enforces the stealing of the rights and benefits of legitimate citizens. Look what happened after Reagan’s amnesty program. A huge flood of new illegals came in banking on an ‘Amnesty 2.0.”

8. What is happening here and in the Eurozone is the slow and ugly train wreck of the failure of multiculturalism. Immigration in the US worked when the immigrants assimilated into the culture. Now we have groups, like the student group MeCHA, that are calling for the Mexican annexation of the American south west, or as they prefer to call it, Aztlan.

Patrick Kyle

Here is the gist of the preceding pro-illegal immigration comments:

Any support for enforcing immigration laws and deportation of ANYONE= mean, cruel, unjust, un-Christian (and un-Lutheran) and RACIST!

Whatever….

1.It is part of Mexico’s public policy to ship their poor and displaced to the US so they can send $$ back to Mexico.

2. Despite the Mexican Government’s loud protests that our immigration policy is unjust and RACIST, look into how illegal immigrants are treated in Mexico. They have absolutely no legal standing and and are raped, assaulted, and exploited with impunity. God help them if the Mexican authorities catch them. Their treatment is the same or worse.

3. Most other countries have a zero tolerance policy on illegal immigration. The ones that don’t (France, the Netherlands, other European countries) are seriously regretting this policy.

4. As a resident of a border state I can attest to the erosion of our quality of life brought on by the flood of illegal immigration. Crime, graffiti, overburdened municipalities and social services operating in the red. Unlicensed, uninsured illegal drivers causing car wrecks, then walking away scott free (if no injuries were caused) leaving the other driver and their insurance with the entire tab. I personally know several people to whom this has happened. I also bear this burden every month in the form of elevated auto insurance rates to cover these situations.

5. They are a huge burden on law enforcement agencies and jails.

6. All this support for amnesty and illegal immigration is a slap in the face of every immigrant who has come here legally and honored that process and a dilution of the benefits of citizenship in this country.

7. Amnesty rewards and positively re-enforces the stealing of the rights and benefits of legitimate citizens. Look what happened after Reagan’s amnesty program. A huge flood of new illegals came in banking on an ‘Amnesty 2.0.”

8. What is happening here and in the Eurozone is the slow and ugly train wreck of the failure of multiculturalism. Immigration in the US worked when the immigrants assimilated into the culture. Now we have groups, like the student group MeCHA, that are calling for the Mexican annexation of the American south west, or as they prefer to call it, Aztlan.

Now we have groups, like the student group MeCHA, that are calling for the Mexican annexation of the American south west, or as they prefer to call it, Aztlan.

Never heard of that. Do they think they would be able to get the productive civic minded folks to stay if it were annexed? It really doesn’t matter so much where the physical land space is. If it is filled with lazy and violent people, it will be terrible. If it is filled with caring civic minded folks, it will be livable even enjoyable. It is not about the potential that the land holds, rather about the people and how well they manage what they have. So even if the land is a goose laying golden eggs, if you give it to someone who kills the goose, there won’t be any more golden eggs.

Consider that Mexico has the highest wealth disparity in the world. That alone should clue you in to their rather lacking civic mindedness. The proportion of people who have immigrated from Mexico over the last 50 years is very high as Michael B. noted. Hispanics are getting close to 30% of the US population. They work cheap and have very low educational achievement. They pose zero threat to elites and the well educated and well to do. They are far more of a threat to US citizens at the bottom. And that is where we should have some mercy on our weaker citizens who are more likely to be adversely affected. Those of us who are more well to do don’t have to compete with these people and they actually increase our standard of living by lowering costs of services that we buy but the lower middle class doesn’t. And we have in fact greatly increased the wealth disparity here as we have imported more and more of these people. It is almost as if US and Mexican presidents sat down for some visits and decided that Mexico has more underclass folks than it can effectively exploit and abuse and whatever extra they have can come here to be abused here. It is sick. The actual hardworking underclass Mexicans are abused and the criminal underclass Mexicans get free reign both here and there. And creepy leaders find an angle to use this situation to enrich and empower themselves. Disgusting.

But what you don’t hear is actual criticism of corrupt Latin American systems for their lack of civic mindedness and the way they perpetuate these situations.

Now we have groups, like the student group MeCHA, that are calling for the Mexican annexation of the American south west, or as they prefer to call it, Aztlan.

Never heard of that. Do they think they would be able to get the productive civic minded folks to stay if it were annexed? It really doesn’t matter so much where the physical land space is. If it is filled with lazy and violent people, it will be terrible. If it is filled with caring civic minded folks, it will be livable even enjoyable. It is not about the potential that the land holds, rather about the people and how well they manage what they have. So even if the land is a goose laying golden eggs, if you give it to someone who kills the goose, there won’t be any more golden eggs.

Consider that Mexico has the highest wealth disparity in the world. That alone should clue you in to their rather lacking civic mindedness. The proportion of people who have immigrated from Mexico over the last 50 years is very high as Michael B. noted. Hispanics are getting close to 30% of the US population. They work cheap and have very low educational achievement. They pose zero threat to elites and the well educated and well to do. They are far more of a threat to US citizens at the bottom. And that is where we should have some mercy on our weaker citizens who are more likely to be adversely affected. Those of us who are more well to do don’t have to compete with these people and they actually increase our standard of living by lowering costs of services that we buy but the lower middle class doesn’t. And we have in fact greatly increased the wealth disparity here as we have imported more and more of these people. It is almost as if US and Mexican presidents sat down for some visits and decided that Mexico has more underclass folks than it can effectively exploit and abuse and whatever extra they have can come here to be abused here. It is sick. The actual hardworking underclass Mexicans are abused and the criminal underclass Mexicans get free reign both here and there. And creepy leaders find an angle to use this situation to enrich and empower themselves. Disgusting.

But what you don’t hear is actual criticism of corrupt Latin American systems for their lack of civic mindedness and the way they perpetuate these situations.

Michael B.

@SG and others

Mitt Romney appeared on CBS’ “Face The Nation” on Sunday, telling Bob Schieffer that President Obama’s decision to halt the deportation of as many as 800,000 young illegal immigrants was politically-driven, but refused to say he would repeal the order if elected president.

Expect more Republicans like Romney in the future. The powers-that-be in the Republican party realize that you can’t alienate your one of your fastest growing demographics in America. The party can’t remain a group of Angry White Men and still win elections.

Michael B.

@SG and others

Mitt Romney appeared on CBS’ “Face The Nation” on Sunday, telling Bob Schieffer that President Obama’s decision to halt the deportation of as many as 800,000 young illegal immigrants was politically-driven, but refused to say he would repeal the order if elected president.

Expect more Republicans like Romney in the future. The powers-that-be in the Republican party realize that you can’t alienate your one of your fastest growing demographics in America. The party can’t remain a group of Angry White Men and still win elections.

Well, duh, of course. That is all we have ever had. Reagan pushed and passed amnesty. And Bush tried to do it, too. Nothing clairvoyant about stating the obvious.

“The powers-that-be in the Republican party realize that you can’t alienate your one of your fastest growing demographics in America.”

Hello. They are only growing because we don’t enforce our own rules. In other words the powers-that-be in the Republican party caused them to be the fastest growing demographic in America. Double duh.

“The party can’t remain a group of Angry White Men and still win elections.”

Actually they would probably win more with that strategy.

Louis J. Barletta (born January 28, 1956) is the U.S. Representative for Pennsylvania’s 11th congressional district. He is a member of the Republican Party. He is the former Mayor of Hazleton, known for his vocal opposition to illegal immigration and his efforts to keep illegal immigrants out of the city.
He was defeated for a seat on the Hazleton City Council in 1996, but won two years later. In 1999, he defeated Jack Mundie for mayor, taking 66% of the vote and overcoming a Democratic registration edge in the city.
Barletta was reelected as mayor in 2003 and 2007. In 2007, Barletta was nominated in both the Republican and Democratic primary elections. Barletta defeated the Democratic candidate, former Mayor Michael Marsicano, on the Democratic ballot as a write-in.”

Well, duh, of course. That is all we have ever had. Reagan pushed and passed amnesty. And Bush tried to do it, too. Nothing clairvoyant about stating the obvious.

“The powers-that-be in the Republican party realize that you can’t alienate your one of your fastest growing demographics in America.”

Hello. They are only growing because we don’t enforce our own rules. In other words the powers-that-be in the Republican party caused them to be the fastest growing demographic in America. Double duh.

“The party can’t remain a group of Angry White Men and still win elections.”

Actually they would probably win more with that strategy.

Louis J. Barletta (born January 28, 1956) is the U.S. Representative for Pennsylvania’s 11th congressional district. He is a member of the Republican Party. He is the former Mayor of Hazleton, known for his vocal opposition to illegal immigration and his efforts to keep illegal immigrants out of the city.
He was defeated for a seat on the Hazleton City Council in 1996, but won two years later. In 1999, he defeated Jack Mundie for mayor, taking 66% of the vote and overcoming a Democratic registration edge in the city.
Barletta was reelected as mayor in 2003 and 2007. In 2007, Barletta was nominated in both the Republican and Democratic primary elections. Barletta defeated the Democratic candidate, former Mayor Michael Marsicano, on the Democratic ballot as a write-in.”

Pretty much anyone who runs on rule of law, including immigration law is going to do well among the civic minded.

Grace

Patrick at 138

YOU COMMENTED: “1.It is part of Mexico’s public policy to ship their poor and displaced to the US so they can send $$ back to Mexico.

This is CORRECT, that’s exactly what they do.

The bottom line is; the illegal aliens need to be returned .. ALL OF THEM .. to their country of origin. I see no other solution.

Obama wants to legalize the aliens – just as it wasdone in the past – – “amnesty” it didn’t work. Those who break the law feel very powerful against the laws of the United States. For the most part, they believe that Texas, California are theirs.

Grace

Patrick at 138

YOU COMMENTED: “1.It is part of Mexico’s public policy to ship their poor and displaced to the US so they can send $$ back to Mexico.

This is CORRECT, that’s exactly what they do.

The bottom line is; the illegal aliens need to be returned .. ALL OF THEM .. to their country of origin. I see no other solution.

Obama wants to legalize the aliens – just as it wasdone in the past – – “amnesty” it didn’t work. Those who break the law feel very powerful against the laws of the United States. For the most part, they believe that Texas, California are theirs.

Michael B.

@sg@141

“Actually they would probably win more with that strategy.”

Are you claiming to know more about winning elections than both the Democrats and Republicans?

Michael B.

@sg@141

“Actually they would probably win more with that strategy.”

Are you claiming to know more about winning elections than both the Democrats and Republicans?

Grace

Michael,

SG, and others like her, do have a better handle on “winning elections” – the problem continues because the vast majority are SPINELESS. They don’t see the future as a dangerous, formidable problem, that will soon be like a tidal wave, if not stopped very soon. SOON, meaning early in the next year after Obama is sent packing.

Immigration laws need to be inforced, and new stricter laws need to be made to protect the citizens of this country. Illegal aliens must be sent back to their country of origin.

Grace

Michael,

SG, and others like her, do have a better handle on “winning elections” – the problem continues because the vast majority are SPINELESS. They don’t see the future as a dangerous, formidable problem, that will soon be like a tidal wave, if not stopped very soon. SOON, meaning early in the next year after Obama is sent packing.

Immigration laws need to be inforced, and new stricter laws need to be made to protect the citizens of this country. Illegal aliens must be sent back to their country of origin.

Because it isn’t dangerous to them. It is a bad deal for folks further down the social scale, not folks at the top. Both parties’ elites like cheap cheap labor and workers with no rights. People further down who feel the negative impact of it don’t like it, but neither party will run on a platform of enforcing immigration laws because their donors don’t want immigration laws enforced. With no candidate on the ballot who advocates what you actually want, you move on to other issues or like many voters, don’t even bother to show up because each stinks as much as the other.

Because it isn’t dangerous to them. It is a bad deal for folks further down the social scale, not folks at the top. Both parties’ elites like cheap cheap labor and workers with no rights. People further down who feel the negative impact of it don’t like it, but neither party will run on a platform of enforcing immigration laws because their donors don’t want immigration laws enforced. With no candidate on the ballot who advocates what you actually want, you move on to other issues or like many voters, don’t even bother to show up because each stinks as much as the other.

Toughening of Laws is not uniform as in where employers whine about things, fines are reduced for them. What does that say?!

Do we really need to come up with crazy laws that make everyone suffer in order to get both politicians and the public to come up with laws that make sense? I think what the mayor was quoted as saying makes alot of sense.

Nuance. One point made was how families are spit up and find themselves in uncertain situations. Here is where I think the idea of mercy would help produce better law. Single men get into more trouble than those who have their families with them.

I found myself feeling good that a law like this was actually being enforced.

And I found myself sad that we could not come up with saner laws.

fws

sg @ 146

I think maybe you exagerate in your mind what mercy might mean here in applying the Laws. here is what I feel is a well written article by the Washington Post

Toughening of Laws is not uniform as in where employers whine about things, fines are reduced for them. What does that say?!

Do we really need to come up with crazy laws that make everyone suffer in order to get both politicians and the public to come up with laws that make sense? I think what the mayor was quoted as saying makes alot of sense.

Nuance. One point made was how families are spit up and find themselves in uncertain situations. Here is where I think the idea of mercy would help produce better law. Single men get into more trouble than those who have their families with them.

I found myself feeling good that a law like this was actually being enforced.

And I found myself sad that we could not come up with saner laws.

fws

sg

ah the main observation I had:

If employers are heavily fined for hireing undocumented aliens, then the undocumented workers will go home without the need for additional laws.

I am thinking that enforcement needs to happen with employers.

Obama has been doing just that.He has been quietly sending in auditors to examine personel files. Less personel are needed to do that sort of enforcement than would be needed to have a raid on a business for example. And it is less disruptive. it os not as visible or flashy though. We need more smart enforcement of the laws like that.

fws

sg

ah the main observation I had:

If employers are heavily fined for hireing undocumented aliens, then the undocumented workers will go home without the need for additional laws.

I am thinking that enforcement needs to happen with employers.

Obama has been doing just that.He has been quietly sending in auditors to examine personel files. Less personel are needed to do that sort of enforcement than would be needed to have a raid on a business for example. And it is less disruptive. it os not as visible or flashy though. We need more smart enforcement of the laws like that.

Single men get into more trouble than those who have their families with them.

Arrow pointing in wrong direction. Troublesome sorts are less likely to marry. Singleness doesn’t cause men to be troublesome. Singleness is the effect. Troublesomeness is the cause.

If employers are heavily fined for hireing undocumented aliens, then the undocumented workers will go home without the need for additional laws.

You mean fine campaign donors? You may as well pass a reverse tariff. Hey, I agree with enforcement as do both Democrat and Republican voters. It is the elites who love selective/non enforcement because that is a way for them to increase margins and shift expenses to taxpayers.

Single men get into more trouble than those who have their families with them.

Arrow pointing in wrong direction. Troublesome sorts are less likely to marry. Singleness doesn’t cause men to be troublesome. Singleness is the effect. Troublesomeness is the cause.

If employers are heavily fined for hireing undocumented aliens, then the undocumented workers will go home without the need for additional laws.

You mean fine campaign donors? You may as well pass a reverse tariff. Hey, I agree with enforcement as do both Democrat and Republican voters. It is the elites who love selective/non enforcement because that is a way for them to increase margins and shift expenses to taxpayers.

Susan

Re: fws’ article

The article is pretty shallow reporting. It doesn’t address the difference between migrant labor and illegal immigration. There is long tradition of legal migrant workers with permits who work during the harvest season. It begins in the southern US and ends in Canada. Once the harvests are finished, the migrants return home. Illegal aliens do not have permits and do not return to their country of origin. The article makes it sound like seasonal harvests can support full-time labor workforce in a region. It cannot.

Another thing this article doesn’t address is that way employers have been given the burden of doing the government’s job of policing and hamstrung by the politicalization of E-Verify. The activists who oppose E-Verify like to vilify employers and create a false narrative. Employers need the legislators to address the problems and make the laws clear and stop suing the states that try to make E-Verify the law in their state. Employers are the ones in need of protection from illegal workers not vice versa.

The article also doesn’t address the fact that most meat packing companies have high employee turn-overs and it is not unique to the Alabama chicken meat packer. It doesn’t address the fact that when illegal immigration is in check, wages rise. Higher wages often help stabilize the high turnover rates in these kinds of industries.

The illegal immigration situation is complex and Obama’s move to rule by fiat, bypass congress, and ignore the complexity of the problems and ill-consequences of his political move to gin up votes is disgusting.

Susan

Re: fws’ article

The article is pretty shallow reporting. It doesn’t address the difference between migrant labor and illegal immigration. There is long tradition of legal migrant workers with permits who work during the harvest season. It begins in the southern US and ends in Canada. Once the harvests are finished, the migrants return home. Illegal aliens do not have permits and do not return to their country of origin. The article makes it sound like seasonal harvests can support full-time labor workforce in a region. It cannot.

Another thing this article doesn’t address is that way employers have been given the burden of doing the government’s job of policing and hamstrung by the politicalization of E-Verify. The activists who oppose E-Verify like to vilify employers and create a false narrative. Employers need the legislators to address the problems and make the laws clear and stop suing the states that try to make E-Verify the law in their state. Employers are the ones in need of protection from illegal workers not vice versa.

The article also doesn’t address the fact that most meat packing companies have high employee turn-overs and it is not unique to the Alabama chicken meat packer. It doesn’t address the fact that when illegal immigration is in check, wages rise. Higher wages often help stabilize the high turnover rates in these kinds of industries.

The illegal immigration situation is complex and Obama’s move to rule by fiat, bypass congress, and ignore the complexity of the problems and ill-consequences of his political move to gin up votes is disgusting.

kerner

Actually, the article points out some pretty important facts. Sg said that immigrant labor does not help the “lower classes”. But it does. Chicken used to be a luxury food item. The idea of a “chicken in every pot” was a promise of a wealthy life style. What made chicken cheap and commonly available is the modern chicken processing plant, and that is in turn made possible by immigrant labor (much of it illegal). Not only because immigrants work cheap. Immigrants also, generally, are more reliable and harder working than their American competitors for those jobs. The reason the “lower classes” can afford to eat chicken (and other forms of meat…this article could have been written about the hormel plans in Iowa too), is because mostly Hipanic immigrants have been willing to spend 9 hours a day cutting up chickens for a wage than makes the chicken cheap enough for the “lower classes” to be able to afford it.

And I, again want to say that more regulation and draconian penalties against American businesses is the last thing we need. Having the IRS, OSHA, the EEOC,etc. crawling up the backsides of American businesses and depressing the economy hasn’t been bad enough for you? We need to let the Department of Homeland Security crawl up there with them too?

And I am tolally opposed to the tyrannical concept of people needing a govenrment “number of the beast” ID card to “legally” work. It should NEVER be illegal for an adult to work.

All these concepts are antithetical to the concept of liberty that has made this country what it is. Economic protectionism has been shown time and time again to be a failure.

kerner

Actually, the article points out some pretty important facts. Sg said that immigrant labor does not help the “lower classes”. But it does. Chicken used to be a luxury food item. The idea of a “chicken in every pot” was a promise of a wealthy life style. What made chicken cheap and commonly available is the modern chicken processing plant, and that is in turn made possible by immigrant labor (much of it illegal). Not only because immigrants work cheap. Immigrants also, generally, are more reliable and harder working than their American competitors for those jobs. The reason the “lower classes” can afford to eat chicken (and other forms of meat…this article could have been written about the hormel plans in Iowa too), is because mostly Hipanic immigrants have been willing to spend 9 hours a day cutting up chickens for a wage than makes the chicken cheap enough for the “lower classes” to be able to afford it.

And I, again want to say that more regulation and draconian penalties against American businesses is the last thing we need. Having the IRS, OSHA, the EEOC,etc. crawling up the backsides of American businesses and depressing the economy hasn’t been bad enough for you? We need to let the Department of Homeland Security crawl up there with them too?

And I am tolally opposed to the tyrannical concept of people needing a govenrment “number of the beast” ID card to “legally” work. It should NEVER be illegal for an adult to work.

All these concepts are antithetical to the concept of liberty that has made this country what it is. Economic protectionism has been shown time and time again to be a failure.

kerner

“Arrow pointing in wrong direction. Troublesome sorts are less likely to marry. Singleness doesn’t cause men to be troublesome. Singleness is the effect. Troublesomeness is the cause.”

I dissagree. It’s probably a combination of the two, but the tendency of men to “settle down” once they get married and father children is pretty well accepted. I’ve been practicing criminal law for 32 years, and while I don’t have any studies to quote off hand, I have to say that nobody I know in the law enforcement community would claim that marriage and family have no calming effect on men.

kerner

“Arrow pointing in wrong direction. Troublesome sorts are less likely to marry. Singleness doesn’t cause men to be troublesome. Singleness is the effect. Troublesomeness is the cause.”

I dissagree. It’s probably a combination of the two, but the tendency of men to “settle down” once they get married and father children is pretty well accepted. I’ve been practicing criminal law for 32 years, and while I don’t have any studies to quote off hand, I have to say that nobody I know in the law enforcement community would claim that marriage and family have no calming effect on men.

fws

kerner @ 151

If the republican party spoke on principle as you just did, I would be a republican.

Re: Kerner: “Sg said that immigrant labor does not help the “lower classes”. But it does. Chicken used to be a luxury food item … Not only because immigrants work cheap. Immigrants also, generally, are more reliable and harder working than their American competitors for those jobs.”

There are several fallacies here.

1) lowering wages and increasing competition for low-skill set jobs does not help American citizens in the lower income brackets. There is greater unemployment, increases in the use of social welfare benefits, stifles upward mobility, and prevents wage increases that occur when illegal immigration is kept in check. Higher wages help the poor afford food not illegal immigrants. Your arguments evoke a populist progressive meme.

2) The stereotyping of illegal immigrants as being more reliable and harder working than their American counterparts is a progressive meme and an insult to many in the lower earnings brackets. But foolish me, upper income citizens shouldn’t be expected to understand people who don’t live in their neighborhoods.

Susan

Re: Kerner: “Sg said that immigrant labor does not help the “lower classes”. But it does. Chicken used to be a luxury food item … Not only because immigrants work cheap. Immigrants also, generally, are more reliable and harder working than their American competitors for those jobs.”

There are several fallacies here.

1) lowering wages and increasing competition for low-skill set jobs does not help American citizens in the lower income brackets. There is greater unemployment, increases in the use of social welfare benefits, stifles upward mobility, and prevents wage increases that occur when illegal immigration is kept in check. Higher wages help the poor afford food not illegal immigrants. Your arguments evoke a populist progressive meme.

2) The stereotyping of illegal immigrants as being more reliable and harder working than their American counterparts is a progressive meme and an insult to many in the lower earnings brackets. But foolish me, upper income citizens shouldn’t be expected to understand people who don’t live in their neighborhoods.

But then the boorshwazhie would not understand that ,
as you also pointed out.
Only the proletariat working folks get what you say.
Nice touch.

Wealth (competition) is theft!

Susan

Fallacious diatribe will get you nowhere, fws. If wealth competition from illegal immigrants is so good for the US, why not have open borders and allow immigration for any and all who come here? Surely, the US can absorb it without any harm being done? Surely, we don’t need trade agreements with other nations and other such laws. Perhaps you would like to throw all the rules away and fulfill the Progressive dreams of wealth redistribution starting with the elites which according to Obama includes the small businesses. Such foolish and unmerciful tripe.

Susan

Fallacious diatribe will get you nowhere, fws. If wealth competition from illegal immigrants is so good for the US, why not have open borders and allow immigration for any and all who come here? Surely, the US can absorb it without any harm being done? Surely, we don’t need trade agreements with other nations and other such laws. Perhaps you would like to throw all the rules away and fulfill the Progressive dreams of wealth redistribution starting with the elites which according to Obama includes the small businesses. Such foolish and unmerciful tripe.

Wow — I missed this whole thread on Friday. Probably a good thing, the way it turned out.

So, to get back to the original post, and its questions, Obama’s announcement of a new administrative policy is coldly and politically calculated, in my opinion. It is partly an effort to distract from the horrific economy and to shore up a flagging political base, and it is partly an effort to short circuit Marco Rubio’s similar legislative proposal. As noted by the liberal commentary blog “Talking Points Memo” on May 14, Rubio’s developing proposal was creating a great deal of consternation in the Democratic hierarchy — they’re afraid of him, especially if he becomes the vice-presidential nominee: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/marco-rubio-dream-act-hispanic.php

So, this action was about beating Rubio to the punch and pandering to the Democratic Latino base. Part of the policy pretty much just puts into official writing what has been the practical policy for many years — immigration officials aren’t going to deport young illegals who arrived in the U.S. at an early age. They are going to focus their resources elsewhere. Nothing illegal or unconstitutional about this. It would be nice if this de facto policy were accompanied by a policy that focused on preventing more such young people from entering the country illegally, however.

The second part of the policy — to issue work permits to these illegal residents — is clearly unlawful and unconstitutional. Obama must know this, but has made this cynical announcement in the hopes of baiting his political opponents into making this a primary issue in the campaign rather than his wrecking of the economy. Statutory law forbids those in the country illegally from working. Obama can’t change this law by announcing a policy and undertaking it administratively. Congress has to change the law in this area. This policy, if it is in fact implemented (I am cynical enough to believe that he might not even intend to issue the unlawful work permits), will be challenged by an appropriate advocacy group and will be overturned ultimately. As many other unlawful Obama-initiated administrative decrees have been.

DonS

Wow — I missed this whole thread on Friday. Probably a good thing, the way it turned out.

So, to get back to the original post, and its questions, Obama’s announcement of a new administrative policy is coldly and politically calculated, in my opinion. It is partly an effort to distract from the horrific economy and to shore up a flagging political base, and it is partly an effort to short circuit Marco Rubio’s similar legislative proposal. As noted by the liberal commentary blog “Talking Points Memo” on May 14, Rubio’s developing proposal was creating a great deal of consternation in the Democratic hierarchy — they’re afraid of him, especially if he becomes the vice-presidential nominee: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/marco-rubio-dream-act-hispanic.php

So, this action was about beating Rubio to the punch and pandering to the Democratic Latino base. Part of the policy pretty much just puts into official writing what has been the practical policy for many years — immigration officials aren’t going to deport young illegals who arrived in the U.S. at an early age. They are going to focus their resources elsewhere. Nothing illegal or unconstitutional about this. It would be nice if this de facto policy were accompanied by a policy that focused on preventing more such young people from entering the country illegally, however.

The second part of the policy — to issue work permits to these illegal residents — is clearly unlawful and unconstitutional. Obama must know this, but has made this cynical announcement in the hopes of baiting his political opponents into making this a primary issue in the campaign rather than his wrecking of the economy. Statutory law forbids those in the country illegally from working. Obama can’t change this law by announcing a policy and undertaking it administratively. Congress has to change the law in this area. This policy, if it is in fact implemented (I am cynical enough to believe that he might not even intend to issue the unlawful work permits), will be challenged by an appropriate advocacy group and will be overturned ultimately. As many other unlawful Obama-initiated administrative decrees have been.

“I dissagree. It’s probably a combination of the two, but the tendency of men to “settle down” once they get married and father children is pretty well accepted.”

Plenty of false ideas are accepted. So what? Men marry when they settle down. This is a generalization, of course. You have to control for age. Men and women slow down as they age. They also get married. The two trend together. So, no, marriage doesn’t cause men to settle much if at all. Rather men settle down then marry.

“I dissagree. It’s probably a combination of the two, but the tendency of men to “settle down” once they get married and father children is pretty well accepted.”

Plenty of false ideas are accepted. So what? Men marry when they settle down. This is a generalization, of course. You have to control for age. Men and women slow down as they age. They also get married. The two trend together. So, no, marriage doesn’t cause men to settle much if at all. Rather men settle down then marry.

Traditionally, the left would side with labor, specifically citizen labor. But the so-called left in the US is not really left. We don’t have a left that really supports American workers. We have two parties that serve capital and have voter bases that they pander to in order to get elected.

Traditionally, the left would side with labor, specifically citizen labor. But the so-called left in the US is not really left. We don’t have a left that really supports American workers. We have two parties that serve capital and have voter bases that they pander to in order to get elected.

I would guess that personality traits that women and employers both value play a part. That brings us back to what is cause and what is effect. Whatever it is that causes some men to settle down, or be less troublesome or be more desirable workers also motivates them to marry rather than just keep chasing skirts and getting into other trouble.

I would guess that personality traits that women and employers both value play a part. That brings us back to what is cause and what is effect. Whatever it is that causes some men to settle down, or be less troublesome or be more desirable workers also motivates them to marry rather than just keep chasing skirts and getting into other trouble.

kerner

susan @154:

You say my arguments have a progressive meme, but nothing could be further from the truth. My arguments are based on the ideas of the great free market economists of our time. Hayek, Von Mises and Friedman.

All of these great defenders of the free markets took the position that competition and markets produce prosperity, while attempts by the government to promote prosperity always failo to do so. It is you, Susan, who are spouting the progressive meme, because it is you who are asking the government to interfere in the free market (of labor, in this case) by artificially stifling competition. Friedman pointed out that when the government does this, the result is not prosperity, but inflation. That is, if you artificially increase wages by government limits on competition, what you end up with is lower productivity, and inflated prices which the poor, even with their artificially inflated wages, still cannot afford.

The problem is that most people, including you, fear competition and seek to avoid it, or somehow believe that it should be for someone else. (eg. businesses should have to compete with each other, but not workers, which is basically what you are saying)

Both you and sg take the Progressive position that economics are some kind of a struggle between Labor and Capital, when the free market conservative recognizes that both Labor and Business should be operating in free markets, because this will produce more prosperity for everyone.

Back in the mid 2000’s, when illegal immigration was at its height, unemployment was at its lowest. Illegals were buying houses and even commercial properties.. Now that the economy is in the tank illegal immigration is so low that more people are leaving than coming. And why is ity in the tank? The first reason was the housing crash, caused by (of course) government interference in the mortgfage market (yes, more well meaning government “help” that backfired), followed by 3.5 years of Obamanomics, because Obama knows nothing of free markets and sees no reason to allow them to work.

kerner

susan @154:

You say my arguments have a progressive meme, but nothing could be further from the truth. My arguments are based on the ideas of the great free market economists of our time. Hayek, Von Mises and Friedman.

All of these great defenders of the free markets took the position that competition and markets produce prosperity, while attempts by the government to promote prosperity always failo to do so. It is you, Susan, who are spouting the progressive meme, because it is you who are asking the government to interfere in the free market (of labor, in this case) by artificially stifling competition. Friedman pointed out that when the government does this, the result is not prosperity, but inflation. That is, if you artificially increase wages by government limits on competition, what you end up with is lower productivity, and inflated prices which the poor, even with their artificially inflated wages, still cannot afford.

The problem is that most people, including you, fear competition and seek to avoid it, or somehow believe that it should be for someone else. (eg. businesses should have to compete with each other, but not workers, which is basically what you are saying)

Both you and sg take the Progressive position that economics are some kind of a struggle between Labor and Capital, when the free market conservative recognizes that both Labor and Business should be operating in free markets, because this will produce more prosperity for everyone.

Back in the mid 2000’s, when illegal immigration was at its height, unemployment was at its lowest. Illegals were buying houses and even commercial properties.. Now that the economy is in the tank illegal immigration is so low that more people are leaving than coming. And why is ity in the tank? The first reason was the housing crash, caused by (of course) government interference in the mortgfage market (yes, more well meaning government “help” that backfired), followed by 3.5 years of Obamanomics, because Obama knows nothing of free markets and sees no reason to allow them to work.

kerner

sg @159 and 161:

We are getting into a “chicken and egg” argument here. Again, I think there are elements of both. If men settle down to please women. I suppose it can be said that at least some of them have to settle down first before their women will be suitably pleased. But I think there is plenty of evidence for the phenomena of at least some women taking a pretty unsettled man and pressuring him to settle down.

kerner

sg @159 and 161:

We are getting into a “chicken and egg” argument here. Again, I think there are elements of both. If men settle down to please women. I suppose it can be said that at least some of them have to settle down first before their women will be suitably pleased. But I think there is plenty of evidence for the phenomena of at least some women taking a pretty unsettled man and pressuring him to settle down.

Grace

Kerner @ 163

Men and women fall in love, whethr their “settled” or not. Some poor women work awhile to get them both “settled” 😉

Grace

Kerner @ 163

Men and women fall in love, whethr their “settled” or not. Some poor women work awhile to get them both “settled” 😉

kerner

“Traditionally, the left would side with labor, specifically citizen labor. But the so-called left in the US is not really left. We don’t have a left that really supports American workers.”

Well, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which is the source of the restrictions on immigrant labor that we are arguing about today was heavily supported by Teddy Kennedy and the Labor Unions. It’s whole purpose was labor protectionism. But once again, that fact just proves that there is nothing conservative about the current anti-immigrant labor fussing.

But I continue to take the position that less protectionism and more free markets have created a better environment for American workers today than there was when they were supposedly protected by government. Competition is what has produced all our technological advances and increased productivity (including all than low priced chicken). Everybody is better off because of it.

kerner

“Traditionally, the left would side with labor, specifically citizen labor. But the so-called left in the US is not really left. We don’t have a left that really supports American workers.”

Well, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which is the source of the restrictions on immigrant labor that we are arguing about today was heavily supported by Teddy Kennedy and the Labor Unions. It’s whole purpose was labor protectionism. But once again, that fact just proves that there is nothing conservative about the current anti-immigrant labor fussing.

But I continue to take the position that less protectionism and more free markets have created a better environment for American workers today than there was when they were supposedly protected by government. Competition is what has produced all our technological advances and increased productivity (including all than low priced chicken). Everybody is better off because of it.

Grace

Susan @ 156

YOU COMMENTED: – – “Perhaps you would like to throw all the rules away and fulfill the Progressive dreams of wealth redistribution starting with the elites which according to Obama includes the small businesses. Such foolish and unmerciful tripe.”

That’s most likely what he has in mind. It is “tripe” –

Grace

Susan @ 156

YOU COMMENTED: – – “Perhaps you would like to throw all the rules away and fulfill the Progressive dreams of wealth redistribution starting with the elites which according to Obama includes the small businesses. Such foolish and unmerciful tripe.”

That’s most likely what he has in mind. It is “tripe” –

Grace

kerner @ 152

YOU COMMENTED: “I’ve been practicing criminal law for 32 years, and while I don’t have any studies to quote off hand, I have to say that nobody I know in the law enforcement community would claim that marriage and family have no calming effect on men.“

Kerner, it would matter who you’re talking about, what their cultural attitudes are. That plays a big part in whether a man can “settle down” or as you put it “calming effect on men.”

If men have not been brought up to respect women, or have come from a home where there were restrictions and rules, then yes, “marriage” would play a big part in his behavior – but if a male comes from a home where there was no father, the entire composition of future family life with this man would not be the same, or compatable with accepted standards.

Grace

kerner @ 152

YOU COMMENTED: “I’ve been practicing criminal law for 32 years, and while I don’t have any studies to quote off hand, I have to say that nobody I know in the law enforcement community would claim that marriage and family have no calming effect on men.“

Kerner, it would matter who you’re talking about, what their cultural attitudes are. That plays a big part in whether a man can “settle down” or as you put it “calming effect on men.”

If men have not been brought up to respect women, or have come from a home where there were restrictions and rules, then yes, “marriage” would play a big part in his behavior – but if a male comes from a home where there was no father, the entire composition of future family life with this man would not be the same, or compatable with accepted standards.

Grace

Kerner @ 163

YOU COMMENTED: – – “We are getting into a “chicken and egg” argument here. Again, I think there are elements of both. If men settle down to please women. I suppose it can be said that at least some of them have to settle down first before their women will be suitably pleased. But I think there is plenty of evidence for the phenomena of at least some women taking a pretty unsettled man and pressuring him to settle down.

It depends upon what you call “unsettled” –

If the husband runs around, or comes home late after work, all to often- what’s the point? He isn’t just “unsettled” he’s immoral, this is often at the root of their marital problems. That’s not something most women can fix. Not to many women are willing to hang around for this type of behavior.

IF, the husband in immature, makes mistakes regarding family funds, there is hope that he can learn from what he’s done. Especially if he truly loves his wife, and is willing to listen to reason, and look back on his behavior in a rational way.

Grace

Kerner @ 163

YOU COMMENTED: – – “We are getting into a “chicken and egg” argument here. Again, I think there are elements of both. If men settle down to please women. I suppose it can be said that at least some of them have to settle down first before their women will be suitably pleased. But I think there is plenty of evidence for the phenomena of at least some women taking a pretty unsettled man and pressuring him to settle down.

It depends upon what you call “unsettled” –

If the husband runs around, or comes home late after work, all to often- what’s the point? He isn’t just “unsettled” he’s immoral, this is often at the root of their marital problems. That’s not something most women can fix. Not to many women are willing to hang around for this type of behavior.

IF, the husband in immature, makes mistakes regarding family funds, there is hope that he can learn from what he’s done. Especially if he truly loves his wife, and is willing to listen to reason, and look back on his behavior in a rational way.

Susan

@kerner #162

Your arguments for unfettered markets and open borders reminds me of the 1960’s arguments for free love and open marriage. No limits; no boundaries. Just a lawless free-for-all too stupid to consider the consequences.

Susan

@kerner #162

Your arguments for unfettered markets and open borders reminds me of the 1960’s arguments for free love and open marriage. No limits; no boundaries. Just a lawless free-for-all too stupid to consider the consequences.

Susan

@ Grace #166

Not only is tripe served, but generous sides of ad hominem are added to the plate. Doesn’t say much for their arguments.

Susan

@ Grace #166

Not only is tripe served, but generous sides of ad hominem are added to the plate. Doesn’t say much for their arguments.

Susan

@ Patrick Kyle #139

Astute summary.

Susan

@ Patrick Kyle #139

Astute summary.

Susan

@ Kerner

Can you make a moral case (sans political ideology or economic efficiency) that addresses the inherent consequences of lawless markets and open borders?. If a glut of attorneys moved to your city and it put you out of work, you would see the libertinism of unfettered markets and would find you are no less a NIMBY than anyone else. Governance through laws that support order, support good morals, and protect citizens from lawbreakers is good. The US has the most generous immigration laws in the world, especially to Mexico. The faux magnanimity of libertinism’s open borders is a utopian dream that would harm our neighbors and crush our nation.

Here is a video of Victor Davis Hanson, Heather MacDonald, and Steve Malanga addressing the realities of illegal immigration:

Can you make a moral case (sans political ideology or economic efficiency) that addresses the inherent consequences of lawless markets and open borders?. If a glut of attorneys moved to your city and it put you out of work, you would see the libertinism of unfettered markets and would find you are no less a NIMBY than anyone else. Governance through laws that support order, support good morals, and protect citizens from lawbreakers is good. The US has the most generous immigration laws in the world, especially to Mexico. The faux magnanimity of libertinism’s open borders is a utopian dream that would harm our neighbors and crush our nation.

Here is a video of Victor Davis Hanson, Heather MacDonald, and Steve Malanga addressing the realities of illegal immigration:

According to a new report: “Details of Obama’s DREAM Decree are becoming clearer.”

CIS report notes, 1) The decree doesn’t just apply to illegal immigrants who were “brought to this country by their parents.” It also would give work permits to those who snuck across the border by themselves as teenagers. “Through no fault of their own” is a talking point for DREAM proselytizers, not an actual legal requirement.

2) The same goes for the phrase “and know only this country as home.” That’s a highly imaginative riff on the decree’s actual requirement, which is for 5 years “continuous residence.” It turns out “continuous residence” doesn’t mean what you think it means. “Immigration attorneys have been successful in getting immigration courts to whittle this down to a point where it is almost meaningless,” says CIS’s Jon Feere. As an illegal immigrant you can go back homeabroad for multiple 6-month stints during those five years

According to a new report: “Details of Obama’s DREAM Decree are becoming clearer.”

CIS report notes, 1) The decree doesn’t just apply to illegal immigrants who were “brought to this country by their parents.” It also would give work permits to those who snuck across the border by themselves as teenagers. “Through no fault of their own” is a talking point for DREAM proselytizers, not an actual legal requirement.

2) The same goes for the phrase “and know only this country as home.” That’s a highly imaginative riff on the decree’s actual requirement, which is for 5 years “continuous residence.” It turns out “continuous residence” doesn’t mean what you think it means. “Immigration attorneys have been successful in getting immigration courts to whittle this down to a point where it is almost meaningless,” says CIS’s Jon Feere. As an illegal immigrant you can go back homeabroad for multiple 6-month stints during those five years

I live in the largest city in Wisconsin. The metropolitan area has a population of about 1.3 million people. Which may be not so large by California and Texas standards. But the point is that, as in most large metropolitan areas, there IS a glut of attorneys here. And the competition has threatened to put me out of business many times.

Before I started practicing, there used to be rules against attorneys advertising their services. While it was promoted as a governmental control necessary to keep our profession dignified and prevent the evils of deceptive marketing, what it came down to was a government control that inhibited competition and restricted free speech. So out the “rules that were supposed to “protect” the status quo went. A lot of things changed and I supposed some people were laid off while some firms shrank or went out of business.

What it meant for me was that, if I wanted to compete in this glutted market I would have to learn to market my services and (being a sole practitioner) have to find niche markets. Certain types of practise were lost to me because I had insufficient capital to do the marketing necessary to compete in thos areas. Others were lost because I just wasn’t suited for that kind of work. I have had exceptionally good, and exceptionally bad, years. But all in all I generally make a good middle class (but not wealthy) living.

But, contrary to your snide suggestion, I don’t resent those who are better competitors than I am, nor do I whine about how unfair it is to have to compete with them. The result of all this competition is that more legal services are available to more people at more reasonable prices.

Do I sometimes wish that the world owed me a living? Or that I could charge a lot of money for my services with there being no chance of someone else coming along and offering to do a better job for less money? Everyone probably does. But only socialists, like Teddy Kennedy, and I guess you, try to create such a supposed Utopia where it actually happens.

Finally, can I make a moral case for all this? I am not suggesting that laws have no moral component. I just do not believe that working productively is immoral. If immigrants come here to to be violent or dishonest, then the law should punish them. But if they come here to work hard, give consumers a break by doing it competitively, and trying to build a better life for their families by doing the first two, then the law should leave them alone. Such people are what our country needs more of, not fewer.

I guess the moral component is that I don’r consider coming to this country to work hard and provide for your family as an immoral act. Whereas, I DO see preventing someone else from coming to America where he can provide for his family by working hard (which is NOT true in many other countries) just so I can charge more for my labor than the other guy, as a pretty selfish thing to do. What are you saying? “Go back and live in a plywood shack, Pablo, I deserve that third TV and I don’t need competition from you screwing up my chances of getting it?” Do you really think that is a MORAL position to take?

kerner

Susan:

I live in the largest city in Wisconsin. The metropolitan area has a population of about 1.3 million people. Which may be not so large by California and Texas standards. But the point is that, as in most large metropolitan areas, there IS a glut of attorneys here. And the competition has threatened to put me out of business many times.

Before I started practicing, there used to be rules against attorneys advertising their services. While it was promoted as a governmental control necessary to keep our profession dignified and prevent the evils of deceptive marketing, what it came down to was a government control that inhibited competition and restricted free speech. So out the “rules that were supposed to “protect” the status quo went. A lot of things changed and I supposed some people were laid off while some firms shrank or went out of business.

What it meant for me was that, if I wanted to compete in this glutted market I would have to learn to market my services and (being a sole practitioner) have to find niche markets. Certain types of practise were lost to me because I had insufficient capital to do the marketing necessary to compete in thos areas. Others were lost because I just wasn’t suited for that kind of work. I have had exceptionally good, and exceptionally bad, years. But all in all I generally make a good middle class (but not wealthy) living.

But, contrary to your snide suggestion, I don’t resent those who are better competitors than I am, nor do I whine about how unfair it is to have to compete with them. The result of all this competition is that more legal services are available to more people at more reasonable prices.

Do I sometimes wish that the world owed me a living? Or that I could charge a lot of money for my services with there being no chance of someone else coming along and offering to do a better job for less money? Everyone probably does. But only socialists, like Teddy Kennedy, and I guess you, try to create such a supposed Utopia where it actually happens.

Finally, can I make a moral case for all this? I am not suggesting that laws have no moral component. I just do not believe that working productively is immoral. If immigrants come here to to be violent or dishonest, then the law should punish them. But if they come here to work hard, give consumers a break by doing it competitively, and trying to build a better life for their families by doing the first two, then the law should leave them alone. Such people are what our country needs more of, not fewer.

I guess the moral component is that I don’r consider coming to this country to work hard and provide for your family as an immoral act. Whereas, I DO see preventing someone else from coming to America where he can provide for his family by working hard (which is NOT true in many other countries) just so I can charge more for my labor than the other guy, as a pretty selfish thing to do. What are you saying? “Go back and live in a plywood shack, Pablo, I deserve that third TV and I don’t need competition from you screwing up my chances of getting it?” Do you really think that is a MORAL position to take?

fws

susan @ 172

visas and passports are a very new thing Susan. So is the concept of a nation/state. So you are saying what? Up until around the time that the usa had the system of immigration laws as we know them around a hundred or so years ago, that the usa was lawless as to immigration?

Your view seems very myopic and your view back into history anachronistic.

visas and passports are a very new thing Susan. So is the concept of a nation/state. So you are saying what? Up until around the time that the usa had the system of immigration laws as we know them around a hundred or so years ago, that the usa was lawless as to immigration?

Your view seems very myopic and your view back into history anachronistic.

But I continue to take the position that less protectionism and more free markets have created a better environment for American workers today than there was when they were supposedly protected by government.

That is an overstatement at least. And probably just false.

Competition is what has produced all our technological advances and increased productivity (including all than low priced chicken).

And this surely does not follow from the first assumption. Cheap labor is not a cause of innovation. More like the opposite. If cheap labor caused innovation then countries with slavery with be the most innovative. Of course, they are not. Countries with the most expensive labor are the most innovative.

Everybody is better off because of it.

No they aren’t. People’s lives aren’t improved by earning less for what they do.

But I continue to take the position that less protectionism and more free markets have created a better environment for American workers today than there was when they were supposedly protected by government.

That is an overstatement at least. And probably just false.

Competition is what has produced all our technological advances and increased productivity (including all than low priced chicken).

And this surely does not follow from the first assumption. Cheap labor is not a cause of innovation. More like the opposite. If cheap labor caused innovation then countries with slavery with be the most innovative. Of course, they are not. Countries with the most expensive labor are the most innovative.

Everybody is better off because of it.

No they aren’t. People’s lives aren’t improved by earning less for what they do.

But I continue to take the position that less protectionism and more free markets have created a better environment for American workers today than there was when they were supposedly protected by government.

That is an overstatement at least. And probably just false.

Competition is what has produced all our technological advances and increased productivity (including all than low priced chicken).

And this surely does not follow from the first assumption. Cheap labor is not a cause of innovation. More like the opposite. If cheap labor caused innovation then countries with slavery with be the most innovative. Of course, they are not. Countries with the most expensive labor are the most innovative. You are talking about a different aspect of competition.

Everybody is better off because of it.

No they aren’t. People’s lives aren’t improved by earning less for what they do.

But I continue to take the position that less protectionism and more free markets have created a better environment for American workers today than there was when they were supposedly protected by government.

That is an overstatement at least. And probably just false.

Competition is what has produced all our technological advances and increased productivity (including all than low priced chicken).

And this surely does not follow from the first assumption. Cheap labor is not a cause of innovation. More like the opposite. If cheap labor caused innovation then countries with slavery with be the most innovative. Of course, they are not. Countries with the most expensive labor are the most innovative. You are talking about a different aspect of competition.

Everybody is better off because of it.

No they aren’t. People’s lives aren’t improved by earning less for what they do.

kerner

“Countries with the most expensive labor are the most innovative”

You mean places like Greece, where labor is very expensive compared to output, but from which has come no inovation I know of in the modern era?

You have it backwards. Innovation produces high wages. High wages for low productivity do not produce innovation. And competition is what encourages innovation.

You fail to look at more than one step in the economic process. When people have to compete, they may have to make less money in the short term, but they also have to innovate. And it is innovation that creates better, more competitive products which increases sales which keeps everybody employed. And competition also keeps prices low. Which means that, even though wages seem to have not increased very much, each dollar buys more than it used to. A “low” paid (by our standards) worker today can buy a lot more with his “low” wages than he could when the economy was much better controlled than it is now. So the worker is better off. Of course, he would be even more better off if he upgrades his skills so he can make even more money (i.e, become more competitive).

And economies based on slave labor are by definition, not based on competition. A slave has no incentive to work hard or innovate, because his life gets no better if he does. A worker who wants to get and keep a job has no incentive to work hard or innovate if he knows that he has no competition for that job. But a worker who has, or wants, a job that he could lose to competition has every reason to be as productive and innovative as he can, and to become as skilled as he can. This is how innovative societies become high wage societies. They don’t start out prosperous and learn to innovat afterwards.

kerner

“Countries with the most expensive labor are the most innovative”

You mean places like Greece, where labor is very expensive compared to output, but from which has come no inovation I know of in the modern era?

You have it backwards. Innovation produces high wages. High wages for low productivity do not produce innovation. And competition is what encourages innovation.

You fail to look at more than one step in the economic process. When people have to compete, they may have to make less money in the short term, but they also have to innovate. And it is innovation that creates better, more competitive products which increases sales which keeps everybody employed. And competition also keeps prices low. Which means that, even though wages seem to have not increased very much, each dollar buys more than it used to. A “low” paid (by our standards) worker today can buy a lot more with his “low” wages than he could when the economy was much better controlled than it is now. So the worker is better off. Of course, he would be even more better off if he upgrades his skills so he can make even more money (i.e, become more competitive).

And economies based on slave labor are by definition, not based on competition. A slave has no incentive to work hard or innovate, because his life gets no better if he does. A worker who wants to get and keep a job has no incentive to work hard or innovate if he knows that he has no competition for that job. But a worker who has, or wants, a job that he could lose to competition has every reason to be as productive and innovative as he can, and to become as skilled as he can. This is how innovative societies become high wage societies. They don’t start out prosperous and learn to innovat afterwards.

Grace

The information below, from PEW Research Center –

Released: June 19, 2012

The Rise of Asian Americans

Asian Americans are the highest-income, best-educated and fastest-growing racial group in the United States. They are more satisfied than the general public with their lives, finances and the direction of the country, and they place more value than other Americans do on marriage, parenthood, hard work and career success, according to a comprehensive new nationwide survey by the Pew Research Center.

A century ago, most Asian Americans were low-skilled, low-wage laborers crowded into ethnic enclaves and targets of official discrimination. Today they are the most likely of any major racial or ethnic group in America to live in mixed neighborhoods and to marry across racial lines. When newly minted medical school graduate Priscilla Chan married Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg last month, she joined the 37% of all recent Asian-American brides who wed a non-Asian groom.1

These milestones of economic success and social assimilation have come to a group that is still majority immigrant. Nearly three-quarters (74%) of Asian-American adults were born abroad; of these, about half say they speak English very well and half say they don’t.

Asians recently passed Hispanics as the largest group of new immigrants to the United States. The educational credentials of these recent arrivals are striking. More than six-in-ten (61%) adults ages 25 to 64 who have come from Asia in recent years have at least a bachelor’s degree. This is double the share among recent non-Asian arrivals, and almost surely makes the recent Asian arrivals the most highly educated cohort of immigrants in U.S. history.”

Asian Americans are the highest-income, best-educated and fastest-growing racial group in the United States. They are more satisfied than the general public with their lives, finances and the direction of the country, and they place more value than other Americans do on marriage, parenthood, hard work and career success, according to a comprehensive new nationwide survey by the Pew Research Center.

A century ago, most Asian Americans were low-skilled, low-wage laborers crowded into ethnic enclaves and targets of official discrimination. Today they are the most likely of any major racial or ethnic group in America to live in mixed neighborhoods and to marry across racial lines. When newly minted medical school graduate Priscilla Chan married Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg last month, she joined the 37% of all recent Asian-American brides who wed a non-Asian groom.1

These milestones of economic success and social assimilation have come to a group that is still majority immigrant. Nearly three-quarters (74%) of Asian-American adults were born abroad; of these, about half say they speak English very well and half say they don’t.

Asians recently passed Hispanics as the largest group of new immigrants to the United States. The educational credentials of these recent arrivals are striking. More than six-in-ten (61%) adults ages 25 to 64 who have come from Asia in recent years have at least a bachelor’s degree. This is double the share among recent non-Asian arrivals, and almost surely makes the recent Asian arrivals the most highly educated cohort of immigrants in U.S. history.”

“When people have to compete, they may have to make less money in the short term, but they also have to innovate.”

For the sake of clarity, let’s just look at what people are competing for. An overabundance of labor that causes it to be cheaper to have someone pick cotton by hand than to buy a machine to do it, does not spur innovation. Competing against a country that pays people very little to pick by hand may motivate us to innovate to be able to compete. The US uses people to pick all kinds of produce because they are so cheap to hire. If there were minimum wage laws that made that impossible, some company or thinker might invent various picking machines to do it cheaper with just a few operators.

So, honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about when you say that meagerly paid unskilled labor competing for the lowest paying jobs by being willing to take even less money is going to turn them into innovators. That makes no sense. And, yes, I know Tesla dug ditches for a while, but that didn’t cause him to become a great thinker. He was already a genius. It was just a dry spot. Geniuses don’t give up electrical engineering for ditch digging when the unions get ditch diggers better compensation and working conditions.

“When people have to compete, they may have to make less money in the short term, but they also have to innovate.”

For the sake of clarity, let’s just look at what people are competing for. An overabundance of labor that causes it to be cheaper to have someone pick cotton by hand than to buy a machine to do it, does not spur innovation. Competing against a country that pays people very little to pick by hand may motivate us to innovate to be able to compete. The US uses people to pick all kinds of produce because they are so cheap to hire. If there were minimum wage laws that made that impossible, some company or thinker might invent various picking machines to do it cheaper with just a few operators.

So, honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about when you say that meagerly paid unskilled labor competing for the lowest paying jobs by being willing to take even less money is going to turn them into innovators. That makes no sense. And, yes, I know Tesla dug ditches for a while, but that didn’t cause him to become a great thinker. He was already a genius. It was just a dry spot. Geniuses don’t give up electrical engineering for ditch digging when the unions get ditch diggers better compensation and working conditions.

And economies based on slave labor are by definition, not based on competition. A slave has no incentive to work hard or innovate, because his life gets no better if he does.

Economies using slave labor compete against those who don’t have slaves. Free labor is the asymmetry that makes their products cheaper than products where the companies have to pay employees. If a slave did innovate, he might actually improve his lot by making himself obsolete. Anyway, slavery is a response to labor shortage not labor oversupply. Where there is too much labor, wages go down and there is plenty of cheap labor, so no need for slaves.

“A worker who wants to get and keep a job has no incentive to work hard or innovate if he knows that he has no competition for that job.”

Okay, but that again is a different situation. That is where employers are competing for the best workers by paying more for better employees. Plenty of employers who thought they could hire anyone with a certain degree found out quickly that that piece of paper does not mean what they thought it meant. And that is why there is a CPA exam, medical boards, bar exams, Actuary exams, etc.

There are markets where the workers compete by working for less. And there are markets where employers compete for workers by paying more. It depends on the situation. There are all kinds of competition. So, in a discussion it needs to be clear who is competing for what.

And economies based on slave labor are by definition, not based on competition. A slave has no incentive to work hard or innovate, because his life gets no better if he does.

Economies using slave labor compete against those who don’t have slaves. Free labor is the asymmetry that makes their products cheaper than products where the companies have to pay employees. If a slave did innovate, he might actually improve his lot by making himself obsolete. Anyway, slavery is a response to labor shortage not labor oversupply. Where there is too much labor, wages go down and there is plenty of cheap labor, so no need for slaves.

“A worker who wants to get and keep a job has no incentive to work hard or innovate if he knows that he has no competition for that job.”

Okay, but that again is a different situation. That is where employers are competing for the best workers by paying more for better employees. Plenty of employers who thought they could hire anyone with a certain degree found out quickly that that piece of paper does not mean what they thought it meant. And that is why there is a CPA exam, medical boards, bar exams, Actuary exams, etc.

There are markets where the workers compete by working for less. And there are markets where employers compete for workers by paying more. It depends on the situation. There are all kinds of competition. So, in a discussion it needs to be clear who is competing for what.

Susan

@ kerner

Good job of accusing me of motives that I do not have.

In your comment you did not distinguish between legal and illegal immigration but focus on legal business competition. In your comments, you say you eke out a living because of our nations’ laws regarding advertising. That it not suffering caused from illegal competition. You have not been put out of business or cannot find work because someone is undercutting you illegally. You also did not address whether illegal immigrants are causing you property damages that you have to pay out-of-pocket for or if your state is being bankrupted by the cost of illegal immigrants.

For the record, I am not in any way opposed to legal immigration (which displays regard for the law and live here lawfully). I am not supportive of illegal immigration which shows disregard for the law and breaks our laws by being here illegally and the use of forged documents – not to mention the other crime factors. I do not support my low-skill set neighbors not being able to work, the property damages suffered, or our public services being overwhelmed so that our most vulnerable citizens cannot have public services they need.

If we follow your train of thought, we should import all of the world’s poor and bankrupt our nation. Not wise, feasible, or showing concern for your neighbors. Funny how we can remember that the bible tells us not to favor the rich man over others because he is rich but forget that we are not to favor the poor above others because they are poor. It seems that you favor the illegal immigrant over your legal American neighbor who suffers unlawfully at his hands.

Susan

@ kerner

Good job of accusing me of motives that I do not have.

In your comment you did not distinguish between legal and illegal immigration but focus on legal business competition. In your comments, you say you eke out a living because of our nations’ laws regarding advertising. That it not suffering caused from illegal competition. You have not been put out of business or cannot find work because someone is undercutting you illegally. You also did not address whether illegal immigrants are causing you property damages that you have to pay out-of-pocket for or if your state is being bankrupted by the cost of illegal immigrants.

For the record, I am not in any way opposed to legal immigration (which displays regard for the law and live here lawfully). I am not supportive of illegal immigration which shows disregard for the law and breaks our laws by being here illegally and the use of forged documents – not to mention the other crime factors. I do not support my low-skill set neighbors not being able to work, the property damages suffered, or our public services being overwhelmed so that our most vulnerable citizens cannot have public services they need.

If we follow your train of thought, we should import all of the world’s poor and bankrupt our nation. Not wise, feasible, or showing concern for your neighbors. Funny how we can remember that the bible tells us not to favor the rich man over others because he is rich but forget that we are not to favor the poor above others because they are poor. It seems that you favor the illegal immigrant over your legal American neighbor who suffers unlawfully at his hands.

Susan

@ Grace

And I’ll bet they are legal not illegal immigrants (guess is based on the assimilation factors).

Susan

@ Grace

And I’ll bet they are legal not illegal immigrants (guess is based on the assimilation factors).

kerner

Susan @ 183:

A lot of Asians are illegal, or start out that way. If you think the guy behind the glass at the gas station always has legal status, think again. Sometimes they do, sometimes not.

@182:

I know the competition I face is not illegal now. But it used to be. The question is not what is legal now so much as what should be legal and why.

Right now it is illegal for a foreigner to come to this country to work, unless he is closely related to someone already legally here, or he has a specialized professional or technical degree in short supply. Just being a good worker who wants to get ahead the old fashioned American way does not get an immigrant anything at all. The restrictions on immigrants working did not exist until 1965. And those restrictions only exist at all due to the efforts of liberals like Teddy Kennedy. These may not be your motives. But it drives me crazy when I hear people say that they favor “legal” immigration when for most foreigners, there is no such thing as legal immigration. They have been excluded for purely left wing reasons, and conservatives don’t seem to realize it, much less care.

My other point is that there are all kinds of ways to make competition illegal. Competition through advertising used to be illegal, but now it’s legal. Competition through immigration used to be legal, but now it’s illegal. But restrictions on competition are almost always a bad idea.

You say you don’t want illegal immigration, and I don’t either. But a lot of immigrants that are illegal shouldn’t be. The law should be changed to allow more honest, hard working, people to immigrate if they want to work here and assimilate. But as recently as 1986, almost no one was working with “forged documents”. Only recently have all those documents been required. And there should not be any such requirements.

And there are already laws on the books that make it illegal for a person to get a green card if he is receiving welfare. I see nothing wrong with extending that to removing aliens who start receiving welfare. I don’t think that much of the welfare state should exist at all, even for Americans. I certainly don’t want to extend American Welfare benefits to the whole world.

But I don’t understand your argument that your “low skill set neighbors can’t work”. Why can’t the work well enough to compete with an illiterate (as to English) foreigner? Or, why can’t they improve their skill set to have more skills than the illiterate foreigner? If a foreigner has no skills or education, one major reason for that is usually because no education is available for poor people in that country. What is the excuse of your “low skill set” neighbors for having a low skill set? Unless they are disabled somehow, couldn’t they go to high school? Couldn’t they learn welding or any other job skill that you can learn in a year or two? Or even if they do have a good reason for having no education, why can’t they just do the same work that illegals do for the money illegals do it for until they gain some skills and advance themselves?

kerner

Susan @ 183:

A lot of Asians are illegal, or start out that way. If you think the guy behind the glass at the gas station always has legal status, think again. Sometimes they do, sometimes not.

@182:

I know the competition I face is not illegal now. But it used to be. The question is not what is legal now so much as what should be legal and why.

Right now it is illegal for a foreigner to come to this country to work, unless he is closely related to someone already legally here, or he has a specialized professional or technical degree in short supply. Just being a good worker who wants to get ahead the old fashioned American way does not get an immigrant anything at all. The restrictions on immigrants working did not exist until 1965. And those restrictions only exist at all due to the efforts of liberals like Teddy Kennedy. These may not be your motives. But it drives me crazy when I hear people say that they favor “legal” immigration when for most foreigners, there is no such thing as legal immigration. They have been excluded for purely left wing reasons, and conservatives don’t seem to realize it, much less care.

My other point is that there are all kinds of ways to make competition illegal. Competition through advertising used to be illegal, but now it’s legal. Competition through immigration used to be legal, but now it’s illegal. But restrictions on competition are almost always a bad idea.

You say you don’t want illegal immigration, and I don’t either. But a lot of immigrants that are illegal shouldn’t be. The law should be changed to allow more honest, hard working, people to immigrate if they want to work here and assimilate. But as recently as 1986, almost no one was working with “forged documents”. Only recently have all those documents been required. And there should not be any such requirements.

And there are already laws on the books that make it illegal for a person to get a green card if he is receiving welfare. I see nothing wrong with extending that to removing aliens who start receiving welfare. I don’t think that much of the welfare state should exist at all, even for Americans. I certainly don’t want to extend American Welfare benefits to the whole world.

But I don’t understand your argument that your “low skill set neighbors can’t work”. Why can’t the work well enough to compete with an illiterate (as to English) foreigner? Or, why can’t they improve their skill set to have more skills than the illiterate foreigner? If a foreigner has no skills or education, one major reason for that is usually because no education is available for poor people in that country. What is the excuse of your “low skill set” neighbors for having a low skill set? Unless they are disabled somehow, couldn’t they go to high school? Couldn’t they learn welding or any other job skill that you can learn in a year or two? Or even if they do have a good reason for having no education, why can’t they just do the same work that illegals do for the money illegals do it for until they gain some skills and advance themselves?

Susan

@ Kerner

Perhaps, you aren’t aware of how many of the Asian immigrants are from adoptions. There were large numbers in the early 70’s from Vietnam, then South Korea, and then China. That’s one factor that has influenced the number of legal immigrations from Asia. And considering that one of my children was adopted from South Korea, I have some familiarity with the immigration and naturalization process. There are also churches and other organizations that sponsor families seeking asylum in the US.

Your claim that there is “no such thing as legal immigration” is bunk. Do you understand the differences between temporary and permanent visas, and the process of naturalization? You seem to be misinformed on the history of immigration laws – the 1965 laws were politically bipartisan and removed ethnic quotas. It reflected the tone of the civil rights era. Our laws also favor those will skills and family reunification. There have also been a number of amnesty laws since 1985 for the illegal aliens that have increased the problems. The immigration laws may “make you crazy” but that is never an excuse for not respecting our laws or working within them or working within the process to amend them. Since you say you are an attorney, I do find your ignorance on the differences in state laws for illegal aliens and the problems with fraud rather amusing.

The majority of illegal aliens come from Mexico and have low-skill sets and low educational levels. The two communities that are hardest hit by illegals are the low-skill set and low educational level Hispanic and African American communities. Your simplistic ideas that these American citizens should simply get an education or vocational training disregards the sociological and complexity of other problems within these groups. It also shows gross ignorance of the job market for low-skill set workers or the abuses of the welfare system by illegals. Not to mention the cultural differences between the Mexicans and other immigrant groups. Your ideas remind me of the infamous Marie Antoinette quote: let them eat cake.

I would ask: in what way do your immigration ideas adhere to the principle of do no harm to a third party? Or have considered how assimilation happens and the time it takes for assimilation to work or the need for manageable numbers for assimilation to happen? Should the most vulnerable people in our citizenry be forced, under the guise of magnanimity for competition from illegal immigrants, to lose their incomes, watch their schools and neighborhoods disintegrate, watch the illegals overwhelm the ER care for the indigent care at local hospitals, and/or be forced into the welfare system because of the added burdens of illegal aliens to their communities? It’s easy to give away other people’s income, homes, neighborhoods, schools, medical care, and so forth. Are you willing to give up your income, your home, your neighborhood, your schools, your access to emergency medical care, and become destitute for open borders? I think not. The subject is much more complex than I think you recognize.

Susan

@ Kerner

Perhaps, you aren’t aware of how many of the Asian immigrants are from adoptions. There were large numbers in the early 70’s from Vietnam, then South Korea, and then China. That’s one factor that has influenced the number of legal immigrations from Asia. And considering that one of my children was adopted from South Korea, I have some familiarity with the immigration and naturalization process. There are also churches and other organizations that sponsor families seeking asylum in the US.

Your claim that there is “no such thing as legal immigration” is bunk. Do you understand the differences between temporary and permanent visas, and the process of naturalization? You seem to be misinformed on the history of immigration laws – the 1965 laws were politically bipartisan and removed ethnic quotas. It reflected the tone of the civil rights era. Our laws also favor those will skills and family reunification. There have also been a number of amnesty laws since 1985 for the illegal aliens that have increased the problems. The immigration laws may “make you crazy” but that is never an excuse for not respecting our laws or working within them or working within the process to amend them. Since you say you are an attorney, I do find your ignorance on the differences in state laws for illegal aliens and the problems with fraud rather amusing.

The majority of illegal aliens come from Mexico and have low-skill sets and low educational levels. The two communities that are hardest hit by illegals are the low-skill set and low educational level Hispanic and African American communities. Your simplistic ideas that these American citizens should simply get an education or vocational training disregards the sociological and complexity of other problems within these groups. It also shows gross ignorance of the job market for low-skill set workers or the abuses of the welfare system by illegals. Not to mention the cultural differences between the Mexicans and other immigrant groups. Your ideas remind me of the infamous Marie Antoinette quote: let them eat cake.

I would ask: in what way do your immigration ideas adhere to the principle of do no harm to a third party? Or have considered how assimilation happens and the time it takes for assimilation to work or the need for manageable numbers for assimilation to happen? Should the most vulnerable people in our citizenry be forced, under the guise of magnanimity for competition from illegal immigrants, to lose their incomes, watch their schools and neighborhoods disintegrate, watch the illegals overwhelm the ER care for the indigent care at local hospitals, and/or be forced into the welfare system because of the added burdens of illegal aliens to their communities? It’s easy to give away other people’s income, homes, neighborhoods, schools, medical care, and so forth. Are you willing to give up your income, your home, your neighborhood, your schools, your access to emergency medical care, and become destitute for open borders? I think not. The subject is much more complex than I think you recognize.

BW

Kerner,

Sidenote for you: If one (myself) wanted to learn about and get fluent with the Austrian School of Economics, where should one start? I don’t really know much about economics to start with.

BW

Kerner,

Sidenote for you: If one (myself) wanted to learn about and get fluent with the Austrian School of Economics, where should one start? I don’t really know much about economics to start with.

kerner

Susan: You said:

” Your simplistic ideas that these American citizens should simply get an education or vocational training disregards the sociological and complexity of other problems within these groups.”

OK, so the “low skill set” Americans don’t have an education or vocational training. But this is not because education and vocational training are not available. It is because these “groups” of Americans have “sociological..problems”. But these same “sociological problems” are the reason ejmployers do not want to hire them. The same sociological problems that cause a person to not go to school or get job training also cause a person to have poor work habits. If an American worker:

1. Comes to work late,
2. Comes to work drunk or on drugs,
3. Often fails to come in at all, and/or
4. Steals

Why should an American have to forego hiring an immigrant and be stuck with an American worker who at best has no work ethic and at worst is some kind of criminal?

And before you chide me for “stereotyping” low skill American workers, remember that it was YOU who just said that the reason low skilled American workers don’t get skills is because they have all these sociological problems.

Yes yes, I know that this is what the law says about immigrant labor for now. But it shouldn’t. Employers should be able to hire workers who will come to work every day, on time, sober, and work hard. It is not fair or moral to force employers to hire workers whose “sociological problems” make them unsuitable for the job.

And stop trying to characterize me as a liberal. I’m not a liberal. Passing laws to force employers to hire unqualified workers is liberal (even if the unqualified workers are American). Allowing employers to hire the best qualified person for the job (even if that person is foreign) is a very conservative position to take, and it is all I have been saying for several days now.

kerner

Susan: You said:

” Your simplistic ideas that these American citizens should simply get an education or vocational training disregards the sociological and complexity of other problems within these groups.”

OK, so the “low skill set” Americans don’t have an education or vocational training. But this is not because education and vocational training are not available. It is because these “groups” of Americans have “sociological..problems”. But these same “sociological problems” are the reason ejmployers do not want to hire them. The same sociological problems that cause a person to not go to school or get job training also cause a person to have poor work habits. If an American worker:

1. Comes to work late,
2. Comes to work drunk or on drugs,
3. Often fails to come in at all, and/or
4. Steals

Why should an American have to forego hiring an immigrant and be stuck with an American worker who at best has no work ethic and at worst is some kind of criminal?

And before you chide me for “stereotyping” low skill American workers, remember that it was YOU who just said that the reason low skilled American workers don’t get skills is because they have all these sociological problems.

Yes yes, I know that this is what the law says about immigrant labor for now. But it shouldn’t. Employers should be able to hire workers who will come to work every day, on time, sober, and work hard. It is not fair or moral to force employers to hire workers whose “sociological problems” make them unsuitable for the job.

And stop trying to characterize me as a liberal. I’m not a liberal. Passing laws to force employers to hire unqualified workers is liberal (even if the unqualified workers are American). Allowing employers to hire the best qualified person for the job (even if that person is foreign) is a very conservative position to take, and it is all I have been saying for several days now.

kerner

BW:
The Road to Serfdom, by Hayek is considered a classic. Personally, I find Eat the Rich, by PJ O’Rourke to be very funny but still instructive.

kerner

BW:
The Road to Serfdom, by Hayek is considered a classic. Personally, I find Eat the Rich, by PJ O’Rourke to be very funny but still instructive.

Susan

@ Kerner

Love your trash can solution to our nations poor and most vulnerable citizens.

Susan

@ Kerner

Love your trash can solution to our nations poor and most vulnerable citizens.

1. Comes to work late,
2. Comes to work drunk or on drugs,
3. Often fails to come in at all, and/or
4. Steals

Sounds like the description of the citizen children of illegal aliens.

OK, so the “low skill set” Americans don’t have an education or vocational training. But this is not because education and vocational training are not available.

Yeah, they are just lazy. That is why they are not doctors. Oh wait…
No, it isn’t. Vocational training only works for those with enough ability to be trained. The poor will always be with us. The idea that we can fix everything by endlessly importing low performing people is insane. FWIW, they are even lower performing by the 4th generation who graduate from high school at a lower rate than 2nd generation. And their fertility rate is twice that of educated Americans. Oh, I can already see the rainbows and unicorns just beyond the event horizon.

1. Comes to work late,
2. Comes to work drunk or on drugs,
3. Often fails to come in at all, and/or
4. Steals

Sounds like the description of the citizen children of illegal aliens.

OK, so the “low skill set” Americans don’t have an education or vocational training. But this is not because education and vocational training are not available.

Yeah, they are just lazy. That is why they are not doctors. Oh wait…
No, it isn’t. Vocational training only works for those with enough ability to be trained. The poor will always be with us. The idea that we can fix everything by endlessly importing low performing people is insane. FWIW, they are even lower performing by the 4th generation who graduate from high school at a lower rate than 2nd generation. And their fertility rate is twice that of educated Americans. Oh, I can already see the rainbows and unicorns just beyond the event horizon.

Susan

@ sg

Re: “Sounds like the description of the citizen children of illegal aliens.”

The studies that have been done more than prove your statement. It’s incredibly sad to see them join the under class.

Susan

@ sg

Re: “Sounds like the description of the citizen children of illegal aliens.”

The studies that have been done more than prove your statement. It’s incredibly sad to see them join the under class.

No, I’m not arguing for anything. I’m pointing out that removing a productive member of our society and sending them someplace where they can’t be doesn’t strike me as particularly wise, or even rational. I’m certain there is a better solution.

No, I’m not arguing for anything. I’m pointing out that removing a productive member of our society and sending them someplace where they can’t be doesn’t strike me as particularly wise, or even rational. I’m certain there is a better solution.

removing a productive member of our society and sending them someplace where they can’t be doesn’t strike me as particularly wise, or even rational.

They aren’t members. That is the whole point. I personally know very productive people who either spent their whole time growing up in a foreign country or here as resident aliens because a parent had employment in this or that country. When they were finished with school and no longer dependents, they had to go back to their home country because that is where their citizenship was.

Also, the citizens here are sovereign. We can deny entrance or residence to any foreigner for any reason or no reason. We do not have to meet your personal standard for what is good or rational. If we agree as a group on the immigration policies we want, that is the standard. There is broad agreement on the policy. Of course greedy exploitive employers want to take advantage of people. That is hardly a new phenomenon, nor one we should bow to .

removing a productive member of our society and sending them someplace where they can’t be doesn’t strike me as particularly wise, or even rational.

They aren’t members. That is the whole point. I personally know very productive people who either spent their whole time growing up in a foreign country or here as resident aliens because a parent had employment in this or that country. When they were finished with school and no longer dependents, they had to go back to their home country because that is where their citizenship was.

Also, the citizens here are sovereign. We can deny entrance or residence to any foreigner for any reason or no reason. We do not have to meet your personal standard for what is good or rational. If we agree as a group on the immigration policies we want, that is the standard. There is broad agreement on the policy. Of course greedy exploitive employers want to take advantage of people. That is hardly a new phenomenon, nor one we should bow to .

Susan

Re: “removing a productive member of our society and sending them someplace where they can’t be doesn’t strike me as particularly wise, or even rational.”

What strikes me as unreasonable with this statement is the lack of acknowledgement of risk factors in decisions and our responsibility for the consequences of our decisions. When a person chooses to illegally enter our nation, they are accepting the risks of arrest and deportation for breaking US laws. It is not unreasonable for them to be held responsible for their actions.

Susan

Re: “removing a productive member of our society and sending them someplace where they can’t be doesn’t strike me as particularly wise, or even rational.”

What strikes me as unreasonable with this statement is the lack of acknowledgement of risk factors in decisions and our responsibility for the consequences of our decisions. When a person chooses to illegally enter our nation, they are accepting the risks of arrest and deportation for breaking US laws. It is not unreasonable for them to be held responsible for their actions.

fws

sg @ 194

“citizens are sovreign”.

says who Sg? who made up that rule? God?

fws

sg @ 194

“citizens are sovreign”.

says who Sg? who made up that rule? God?

fws

sg @ 194

ah. sorry. You tell us that dont you?

[We do not need to agree on] …what is good or rational.
[abitrary group agreement based on collective personal desire]… is the standard.
[Americans broadly have that group-think] on the policy.

So then your next point is just fine as long as we all agree that it is you say:

Of course greedy exploitive employers want to take advantage of people.

If the majority agree that they want to be greedy, exploitative, and take advantage of immigrants, then that is perfectly a-okay you say. We get to do that. Why? Majority rules. Might makes right you say.

In your view, which is consistent across most social issues, a 51% majority or “broad consensus” has the perfect right to dictate to the 49% or less who disagree. And they are perfectly alright to be completely arbitrary and unreasonable or even immoral! Amazing stuff sg. So you have completely bought into “social contract theory” = morality you are telling us?

fws

sg @ 194

ah. sorry. You tell us that dont you?

[We do not need to agree on] …what is good or rational.
[abitrary group agreement based on collective personal desire]… is the standard.
[Americans broadly have that group-think] on the policy.

So then your next point is just fine as long as we all agree that it is you say:

Of course greedy exploitive employers want to take advantage of people.

If the majority agree that they want to be greedy, exploitative, and take advantage of immigrants, then that is perfectly a-okay you say. We get to do that. Why? Majority rules. Might makes right you say.

In your view, which is consistent across most social issues, a 51% majority or “broad consensus” has the perfect right to dictate to the 49% or less who disagree. And they are perfectly alright to be completely arbitrary and unreasonable or even immoral! Amazing stuff sg. So you have completely bought into “social contract theory” = morality you are telling us?

fws

Susan @ 195

I agree. It is illegal in China not to abort a second child. That means that a christian needs to fully accept the risks and consequences of disobeying that law. I fully agree. A christian will be punished for that disobedience and a christian needs to humbly accept and submit to those consequences. AGREED!

It is the second part of your reasoning that I don’t agree with: That the punishment that that christian family will recieve is reasonable. Why is it reasonable you argue? Because the government is merely enforcing the law! What if the Law is unreasonable? or wrong even? then what? For the sake of argument, grant that this (Kerner’s) argument is not entirely unreasonable.

fws

Susan @ 195

I agree. It is illegal in China not to abort a second child. That means that a christian needs to fully accept the risks and consequences of disobeying that law. I fully agree. A christian will be punished for that disobedience and a christian needs to humbly accept and submit to those consequences. AGREED!

It is the second part of your reasoning that I don’t agree with: That the punishment that that christian family will recieve is reasonable. Why is it reasonable you argue? Because the government is merely enforcing the law! What if the Law is unreasonable? or wrong even? then what? For the sake of argument, grant that this (Kerner’s) argument is not entirely unreasonable.

kerner

sg @190:

“Yeah, they are just lazy. That is why they are not doctors. Oh wait…No, it isn’t. Vocational training only works for those with enough ability to be trained. The poor will always be with us. The idea that we can fix everything by endlessly importing low performing people is insane”

A lot of vocational training isn’t rocket science, sg. The majority of farm laborers are probably trainable for semi-skilled positions, or even skilled trades. And even in today’s economy, employers can’t find enough skilled tradespeople to fill their open positions.

And this includes construction workers, which I’m pretty sure Hispanics are capable of learing how to do.

And you will notice that the manpower survey shows a demand for “restaurant workers”. Somehow, I think experience proves that Hispanics can handle restaurant jobs.

Now, I personally believe that a lot of Hispanic immigrants can learn professional skills as well.

But my point is that there are plenty of jobs available that a person could get with non-college vocational training, which too many Americans don’t seem to want. Your point seems to be that Hispanic immigrants are too dumb to learn how to do anything useful at all.

And, while I agree with you that many people have less intellectual skill sets than others, I beleve that almost anyone can be trained to do something useful. Among those whose skill sets are naturally very low and can’t be improved (a very small group I believe), honesty and good work habits are what make them competitive. And if an American doesn’t have those characteristics, but a foreigner does, an employer should be allowed to hire the foreigner.

kerner

sg @190:

“Yeah, they are just lazy. That is why they are not doctors. Oh wait…No, it isn’t. Vocational training only works for those with enough ability to be trained. The poor will always be with us. The idea that we can fix everything by endlessly importing low performing people is insane”

A lot of vocational training isn’t rocket science, sg. The majority of farm laborers are probably trainable for semi-skilled positions, or even skilled trades. And even in today’s economy, employers can’t find enough skilled tradespeople to fill their open positions.

And this includes construction workers, which I’m pretty sure Hispanics are capable of learing how to do.

And you will notice that the manpower survey shows a demand for “restaurant workers”. Somehow, I think experience proves that Hispanics can handle restaurant jobs.

Now, I personally believe that a lot of Hispanic immigrants can learn professional skills as well.

But my point is that there are plenty of jobs available that a person could get with non-college vocational training, which too many Americans don’t seem to want. Your point seems to be that Hispanic immigrants are too dumb to learn how to do anything useful at all.

And, while I agree with you that many people have less intellectual skill sets than others, I beleve that almost anyone can be trained to do something useful. Among those whose skill sets are naturally very low and can’t be improved (a very small group I believe), honesty and good work habits are what make them competitive. And if an American doesn’t have those characteristics, but a foreigner does, an employer should be allowed to hire the foreigner.

fws, I am not sure what you are arguing for. Is representative democracy perfect? Well, no it isn’t. Does majority rule render ideal human interaction in every case? Well, no. But what are the alternatives? Will to power authority? Um, no thank you. This system of popular sovereignty, while imperfect, is actually better for more citizens than a oligarchic dictatorship.

A perfect system is not one of our choices. All systems are flawed. So far, ours has a better track record than others.

fws, I am not sure what you are arguing for. Is representative democracy perfect? Well, no it isn’t. Does majority rule render ideal human interaction in every case? Well, no. But what are the alternatives? Will to power authority? Um, no thank you. This system of popular sovereignty, while imperfect, is actually better for more citizens than a oligarchic dictatorship.

A perfect system is not one of our choices. All systems are flawed. So far, ours has a better track record than others.

A lot of vocational training isn’t rocket science, sg. The majority of farm laborers are probably trainable for semi-skilled positions, or even skilled trades. And even in today’s economy, employers can’t find enough skilled tradespeople to fill their open positions.

So all of our high schools should offer vocational training for students who can’t pass Algebra.

I agree.

The thing is most skilled labor jobs mostly appeal to guys. That would cause a prompt and significant gain for men vs. women. Also, it would mean a lot more jobs for those men teaching those programs. So, that would mean fewer jobs for women as teachers and more for men. Men in skilled labor are notorious for unionizing and keeping out competition from cheaper illegal labor. I don’t see the upside for capital in this equation. Yeah, I can see this going nowhere.

A lot of vocational training isn’t rocket science, sg. The majority of farm laborers are probably trainable for semi-skilled positions, or even skilled trades. And even in today’s economy, employers can’t find enough skilled tradespeople to fill their open positions.

So all of our high schools should offer vocational training for students who can’t pass Algebra.

I agree.

The thing is most skilled labor jobs mostly appeal to guys. That would cause a prompt and significant gain for men vs. women. Also, it would mean a lot more jobs for those men teaching those programs. So, that would mean fewer jobs for women as teachers and more for men. Men in skilled labor are notorious for unionizing and keeping out competition from cheaper illegal labor. I don’t see the upside for capital in this equation. Yeah, I can see this going nowhere.

And you will notice that the manpower survey shows a demand for “restaurant workers”. Somehow, I think experience proves that Hispanics can handle restaurant jobs.

So can American citizen teenagers (18-19), including the citizen children of illegal aliens. 70% of them are unemployed.

. A worker who wants to get and keep a job has no incentive to work hard or innovate if he knows that he has no competition for that job.

Coming to the US and taking jobs that no American is competing for will depress their innovative urge. People from other countries can innovate in their own countries and create wonderful conditions there.

And you will notice that the manpower survey shows a demand for “restaurant workers”. Somehow, I think experience proves that Hispanics can handle restaurant jobs.

So can American citizen teenagers (18-19), including the citizen children of illegal aliens. 70% of them are unemployed.

. A worker who wants to get and keep a job has no incentive to work hard or innovate if he knows that he has no competition for that job.

Coming to the US and taking jobs that no American is competing for will depress their innovative urge. People from other countries can innovate in their own countries and create wonderful conditions there.

fws

sg 200

you are not describing representative democracy. You are describing a pure democracy vs what I suggest as the alternative. a republic

Democracy is the rule of man. it is rule by decree. it is no different than a monarchy or dictatorship at the end.
Republicanism is the rule of Law. we decide in advance what the proper principles are to govern and we enshrine them in a document called a constitution. the entire point is that that doccument cannot be changed by the majority. It requires , ideally, a nearly impossible super majority to change it. the state of mass not only requires this, but also two separate votes spaced at least 3 years apart. A constitution is exactly to oppose the will of the Majority!

see where I am going with this sg?

when i was president of a small Lutheran cong in california we had a perfect example of this principle. I knew that there was one teacher in our school who was adored, and when the subject of pay came up it would be a problem. So 8 months before that point, I had everyone vote to adopt the synodical guidelines for pay.
And since it seemed, in abstract, fair, the vote was unanimous!

Then when we had to decide matters of pay, guess what? they wanted to favor the adored teacher. on what basis? Principles? YES! defined as……. But when I reminded them we had already voted on a adoption of a neutral third party rule, this calmed passions down. It was fair. it favored no one.

I suggest that what would be closest to our constitutional ideal would be the immigration laws as they existed prior to 1870. we did just fine back then. the usa was far from lawless as to immigration.

fws

sg 200

you are not describing representative democracy. You are describing a pure democracy vs what I suggest as the alternative. a republic

Democracy is the rule of man. it is rule by decree. it is no different than a monarchy or dictatorship at the end.
Republicanism is the rule of Law. we decide in advance what the proper principles are to govern and we enshrine them in a document called a constitution. the entire point is that that doccument cannot be changed by the majority. It requires , ideally, a nearly impossible super majority to change it. the state of mass not only requires this, but also two separate votes spaced at least 3 years apart. A constitution is exactly to oppose the will of the Majority!

see where I am going with this sg?

when i was president of a small Lutheran cong in california we had a perfect example of this principle. I knew that there was one teacher in our school who was adored, and when the subject of pay came up it would be a problem. So 8 months before that point, I had everyone vote to adopt the synodical guidelines for pay.
And since it seemed, in abstract, fair, the vote was unanimous!

Then when we had to decide matters of pay, guess what? they wanted to favor the adored teacher. on what basis? Principles? YES! defined as……. But when I reminded them we had already voted on a adoption of a neutral third party rule, this calmed passions down. It was fair. it favored no one.

I suggest that what would be closest to our constitutional ideal would be the immigration laws as they existed prior to 1870. we did just fine back then. the usa was far from lawless as to immigration.

kerner

sg:

“So can American citizen teenagers (18-19), including the citizen children of illegal aliens. 70% of them are unemployed.”

Where’d you get that figure? The closest I could find was about 20% for hispanics 16-24 yoa.

Democracy is the rule of man. it is rule by decree. it is no different than a monarchy or dictatorship at the end.

I disagree. It is quite a bit different.

Republicanism is the rule of Law. we decide in advance what the proper principles are to govern and we enshrine them in a document called a constitution. the entire point is that that doccument cannot be changed by the majority.

It has been changed numerous times, even somewhat recklessly. I am thinking of prohibition in which hysterical women upon their recent gain of the franchise hastily cast their poorly considered votes in favor of prohibiting the sale of alcohol.

It requires , ideally, a nearly impossible super majority to change it. the state of mass not only requires this, but also two separate votes spaced at least 3 years apart.

Historical records clearly document that it has been done. So, it is not impossible. In fact the US Constitution itself was adopted by majority vote of the people’s representatives.

A constitution is exactly to oppose the will of the Majority!

Well, if you are referring to the majority as including the embarrassing behavior of women voting for prohibition, it would seem correct.

see where I am going with this sg?

No.

Anyway. Immigration is not a basic rights issue and should be left to simple majority vote like passing all kinds of other laws. Tons of laws are enacted by simple majority, and that is fine. Immigration laws pertain to keeping foreigners out. They don’t impinge on the rights of citizens, so there really isn’t a reason for the immigration laws to require super majorities or constitutional amendments to change them.

Foreigners have no right to be here. If the majority want a policy to bring in more, fine. Right now we have very high yearly legal immigration including refugees and people are fine with that. We just want the laws enforced to keep out criminals, their families and other cheaters. Pretty straight forward and reasonable.

Democracy is the rule of man. it is rule by decree. it is no different than a monarchy or dictatorship at the end.

I disagree. It is quite a bit different.

Republicanism is the rule of Law. we decide in advance what the proper principles are to govern and we enshrine them in a document called a constitution. the entire point is that that doccument cannot be changed by the majority.

It has been changed numerous times, even somewhat recklessly. I am thinking of prohibition in which hysterical women upon their recent gain of the franchise hastily cast their poorly considered votes in favor of prohibiting the sale of alcohol.

It requires , ideally, a nearly impossible super majority to change it. the state of mass not only requires this, but also two separate votes spaced at least 3 years apart.

Historical records clearly document that it has been done. So, it is not impossible. In fact the US Constitution itself was adopted by majority vote of the people’s representatives.

A constitution is exactly to oppose the will of the Majority!

Well, if you are referring to the majority as including the embarrassing behavior of women voting for prohibition, it would seem correct.

see where I am going with this sg?

No.

Anyway. Immigration is not a basic rights issue and should be left to simple majority vote like passing all kinds of other laws. Tons of laws are enacted by simple majority, and that is fine. Immigration laws pertain to keeping foreigners out. They don’t impinge on the rights of citizens, so there really isn’t a reason for the immigration laws to require super majorities or constitutional amendments to change them.

Foreigners have no right to be here. If the majority want a policy to bring in more, fine. Right now we have very high yearly legal immigration including refugees and people are fine with that. We just want the laws enforced to keep out criminals, their families and other cheaters. Pretty straight forward and reasonable.

when i was president of a small Lutheran cong in california we had a perfect example of this principle. I knew that there was one teacher in our school who was adored, and when the subject of pay came up it would be a problem. So 8 months before that point, I had everyone vote to adopt the synodical guidelines for pay.
And since it seemed, in abstract, fair, the vote was unanimous!

Yeah, because teachers are fungible. I mean they are all alike. Each exactly as good as another, so no teacher should ever earn more than any other. So are lawyers and doctors. There should be a published pay scale for them too, so they all earn the same based on years of service etc. Those doing a great job should not be rewarded. We should have these guidelines adopted in advance because workers are fungible and interchangeable.

when i was president of a small Lutheran cong in california we had a perfect example of this principle. I knew that there was one teacher in our school who was adored, and when the subject of pay came up it would be a problem. So 8 months before that point, I had everyone vote to adopt the synodical guidelines for pay.
And since it seemed, in abstract, fair, the vote was unanimous!

Yeah, because teachers are fungible. I mean they are all alike. Each exactly as good as another, so no teacher should ever earn more than any other. So are lawyers and doctors. There should be a published pay scale for them too, so they all earn the same based on years of service etc. Those doing a great job should not be rewarded. We should have these guidelines adopted in advance because workers are fungible and interchangeable.

fws

sg @ 204 and 205

i was painting a contrast between democracy and constitutional democracy.

at this point you want to win a take-no-prisoner argument rather than do the give and take of dialog.

If you can find nothing to agree on with what I said I would be very surprised knowing better about you sg from reading many previous comments of yours. This might work better if you focus on what you can agree on. Like anything some constitutions are better written than others. The constitution of the the state of Mass happens to be better than our federal one. to argue the way you are, by pointing out abuses, is not a productive way to discuss. It is only to argue pointlessly. You ignored my contrast in the process.

You can do better than this at give and take and a more nuanced discussion.

We are done I think. Bless you dear friend.

fws

sg @ 204 and 205

i was painting a contrast between democracy and constitutional democracy.

at this point you want to win a take-no-prisoner argument rather than do the give and take of dialog.

If you can find nothing to agree on with what I said I would be very surprised knowing better about you sg from reading many previous comments of yours. This might work better if you focus on what you can agree on. Like anything some constitutions are better written than others. The constitution of the the state of Mass happens to be better than our federal one. to argue the way you are, by pointing out abuses, is not a productive way to discuss. It is only to argue pointlessly. You ignored my contrast in the process.

You can do better than this at give and take and a more nuanced discussion.

We are done I think. Bless you dear friend.

Grace

“You can do better than this at give and take and a more nuanced discussion.”

Oh my, the condescending approach when all else fails, including your argument, on it’s face! 😛

Grace

“You can do better than this at give and take and a more nuanced discussion.”

Oh my, the condescending approach when all else fails, including your argument, on it’s face! 😛

kerner

sg @206:

“Those doing a great job should not be rewarded. We should have these guidelines adopted in advance because workers are fungible and interchangeable.”

You are, of course, being sarcastic, but I agree with your point, which is that workers are NOT fungible and interchangeable and good workers SHOULD be rewarded for doing a great job…

…unless they are Mexicans. In the case of Mexicans who want to do a great job and be rewarded, then we SHOULD have guidelines that keep them away from getting any reward for doing a great job, because it was their tough luck to be born in Mexico. And any employer that wants to reward a Mexican for doing a better job than an American is an exploiter of Mexicans and a traitor to Americans.

kerner

sg @206:

“Those doing a great job should not be rewarded. We should have these guidelines adopted in advance because workers are fungible and interchangeable.”

You are, of course, being sarcastic, but I agree with your point, which is that workers are NOT fungible and interchangeable and good workers SHOULD be rewarded for doing a great job…

…unless they are Mexicans. In the case of Mexicans who want to do a great job and be rewarded, then we SHOULD have guidelines that keep them away from getting any reward for doing a great job, because it was their tough luck to be born in Mexico. And any employer that wants to reward a Mexican for doing a better job than an American is an exploiter of Mexicans and a traitor to Americans.

kerner

You know, we really haven’t said much about all the illegals from India, or other parts of Asia, or eastern Europe, or Africa, or even the few from places we aren’t worried about like Canada or Australia. Are you all suggesting treating them all the same, or only getting rid of the Mexicans?

kerner

You know, we really haven’t said much about all the illegals from India, or other parts of Asia, or eastern Europe, or Africa, or even the few from places we aren’t worried about like Canada or Australia. Are you all suggesting treating them all the same, or only getting rid of the Mexicans?

Grace

Kerner @ 210

“You know, we really haven’t said much about all the illegals from India, or other parts of Asia, or eastern Europe, or Africa, or even the few from places we aren’t worried about like Canada or Australia. Are you all suggesting treating them all the same, or only getting rid of the Mexicans?”

The answer to your inquiry should be obvious:

The largest illegal alien population is from below the border. Can you grasp this, or are you so intent on finding a way to argue a point you don’t have, you’ve lost all reason? Further more, it’s rude of you to to single out Mexicans, they by no means are the only ‘below the border illegals. They come from many countries south of the border.

Grace

Kerner @ 210

“You know, we really haven’t said much about all the illegals from India, or other parts of Asia, or eastern Europe, or Africa, or even the few from places we aren’t worried about like Canada or Australia. Are you all suggesting treating them all the same, or only getting rid of the Mexicans?”

The answer to your inquiry should be obvious:

The largest illegal alien population is from below the border. Can you grasp this, or are you so intent on finding a way to argue a point you don’t have, you’ve lost all reason? Further more, it’s rude of you to to single out Mexicans, they by no means are the only ‘below the border illegals. They come from many countries south of the border.

BW

See Kerner, you can say they’re obese, disease ridden, and not house broken, but just don’t call them all Mexican

BW

See Kerner, you can say they’re obese, disease ridden, and not house broken, but just don’t call them all Mexican

Grace

BW

It isn’t right to call all those who come here illegally, from below the border “Mexicans” –

What state are you from BW?

Grace

BW

It isn’t right to call all those who come here illegally, from below the border “Mexicans” –

…unless they are Mexicans. In the case of Mexicans who want to do a great job and be rewarded, then we SHOULD have guidelines that keep them away from getting any reward for doing a great job, because it was their tough luck to be born in Mexico.

Well, that is just plain silly. The US welcomes many thousands of legal immigrants from Mexico every year. We take more Mexicans each year than any other country. So, no guilty conscience here. Also, those in Mexico need to be the ones rewarding their own.

…unless they are Mexicans. In the case of Mexicans who want to do a great job and be rewarded, then we SHOULD have guidelines that keep them away from getting any reward for doing a great job, because it was their tough luck to be born in Mexico.

Well, that is just plain silly. The US welcomes many thousands of legal immigrants from Mexico every year. We take more Mexicans each year than any other country. So, no guilty conscience here. Also, those in Mexico need to be the ones rewarding their own.

We naturalize about a million people a year. We are very open and welcoming. But we are not absolute fools who just want the door open to indiscriminately allow in criminals and crazies.

Grace

SG and Susan

It appears that those who live in other states, are the ones who find it DIFFICULT understanding, (or do they understand, but enjoy all these discussions) no matter how much one describes the illegal alien situation. It matters little how much proof is brought forth. We who live in California and Texas are wrong regarding the problems –

Have you noticed, when asking what state they are from, there is NO answer most of the time?

Ever since I can remember, those who visited California complained about my state. The weather is delightful, beaches are fantastic, mountains lush with trees and wonderful places to stay. The wine country is outstanding, it’s beautiful – the restaurants and wineries are great. The northern coast is rugged with beauty. Yet the people who come here complain.

I’m beginning to see an antagonistic spirit here, perhaps it’s because California is having a difficult time with unlawful illegal aliens – better it be California or Texas then their state.

I can speak for my own state – there are lots of people who would love to come here to live, but cannot afford it. It’s not that they don’t like California, it’s not possible for most people in this country to move here.

Resentment is often easy to detect, but this time, it was masked under __________ you can finish the sentence.

Grace

SG and Susan

It appears that those who live in other states, are the ones who find it DIFFICULT understanding, (or do they understand, but enjoy all these discussions) no matter how much one describes the illegal alien situation. It matters little how much proof is brought forth. We who live in California and Texas are wrong regarding the problems –

Have you noticed, when asking what state they are from, there is NO answer most of the time?

Ever since I can remember, those who visited California complained about my state. The weather is delightful, beaches are fantastic, mountains lush with trees and wonderful places to stay. The wine country is outstanding, it’s beautiful – the restaurants and wineries are great. The northern coast is rugged with beauty. Yet the people who come here complain.

I’m beginning to see an antagonistic spirit here, perhaps it’s because California is having a difficult time with unlawful illegal aliens – better it be California or Texas then their state.

I can speak for my own state – there are lots of people who would love to come here to live, but cannot afford it. It’s not that they don’t like California, it’s not possible for most people in this country to move here.

Resentment is often easy to detect, but this time, it was masked under __________ you can finish the sentence.

Grace

I wonder why people come back, time and time again to vacation in California?

Grace

I wonder why people come back, time and time again to vacation in California?

Grace

Texas has a lot to offer as well. We love San Antonio, it’s great. Houston and Dallas are both wonderful cities. Hmmmmm

Grace

Texas has a lot to offer as well. We love San Antonio, it’s great. Houston and Dallas are both wonderful cities. Hmmmmm

kerner

Susan and sg:

In 2005 the Comptroller of the State of Texas did a study to determine the economic costs and/or benefits resulting from the presence of illegal aliens in Texas. The results were as follows:

As to tax revenue alone, Texas State government took in $424.7 million more from illegal aliens than it spent on them. This was partly due to Texas’ system of taxation which is based almost entirely on consumption taxes (Texas has no personal inclome tax) which are not avoided by an underground economy.

Local governments, however, took a revenue loss of $928.9 million.

But, the illegals contribute so much to the Texas economy that the Texas gross state product is $17.7 BILLION greater because the illegals are there. This translates into an increased personal income to Texans of $18.5 BILLION.

In other words, the Texas economy including all the illegal aliens made Texans $18.5 billion dollars richer in 2005 than they would have been without the illegals. And Texas State government made a profit of $424.7 million dollars from the illegals, because they pay more into the state than they take out. Local governments took a loss of $928.9 million dollars, which Texas citizens had to pay out of the $18.5 BILLION dollars that the illegals made for them.

Now, I realize that I don’t leve in Texas, but I assume that the Texas State Comptroller DOES live there. And her conclusion was that in 2005 Texans were a lot better off financially with the presence of illegals than they would have been without them.

The economy was good in 2005, so that may have changed. But any change would not be due to the illegals per se, but would instead be due to the housing market crash (both parties’ fault) followed by 3.5 years of Obamanomics (the democrats’ fault) that has caused the bad ecomony to drag on far longer than it should have. And the bad economy, as I have said before, is actually causing the illegals to go back faster than any government policy ever could.

I realize that this may make no difference to you at all, because some of you just don’t like the illegals and you don’t want to believe that they have actually made Texans wealthier on balance.

kerner

Susan and sg:

In 2005 the Comptroller of the State of Texas did a study to determine the economic costs and/or benefits resulting from the presence of illegal aliens in Texas. The results were as follows:

As to tax revenue alone, Texas State government took in $424.7 million more from illegal aliens than it spent on them. This was partly due to Texas’ system of taxation which is based almost entirely on consumption taxes (Texas has no personal inclome tax) which are not avoided by an underground economy.

Local governments, however, took a revenue loss of $928.9 million.

But, the illegals contribute so much to the Texas economy that the Texas gross state product is $17.7 BILLION greater because the illegals are there. This translates into an increased personal income to Texans of $18.5 BILLION.

In other words, the Texas economy including all the illegal aliens made Texans $18.5 billion dollars richer in 2005 than they would have been without the illegals. And Texas State government made a profit of $424.7 million dollars from the illegals, because they pay more into the state than they take out. Local governments took a loss of $928.9 million dollars, which Texas citizens had to pay out of the $18.5 BILLION dollars that the illegals made for them.

Now, I realize that I don’t leve in Texas, but I assume that the Texas State Comptroller DOES live there. And her conclusion was that in 2005 Texans were a lot better off financially with the presence of illegals than they would have been without them.

The economy was good in 2005, so that may have changed. But any change would not be due to the illegals per se, but would instead be due to the housing market crash (both parties’ fault) followed by 3.5 years of Obamanomics (the democrats’ fault) that has caused the bad ecomony to drag on far longer than it should have. And the bad economy, as I have said before, is actually causing the illegals to go back faster than any government policy ever could.

I realize that this may make no difference to you at all, because some of you just don’t like the illegals and you don’t want to believe that they have actually made Texans wealthier on balance.

The 2009 Lone Star Foundation estimates the cost of illegals to Texans at $4.5 to $6 billion
system.gocampaign.com/files/file.asp?f=165355

Susan

@ kerner

Since my other replies to your comment #218 disappeared from the webpage, I will attempt to repeat some of them here.

1) Please reread the report. You did not interpret the report correctly and your numbers are grossly off. Your understanding of how to read the report, do basic math, and critique the methodology has led you to false conclusions.

2) The estimated GSP for the state is $17.7 billion. Included in the amount is an estimated gross production from illegals of $1.58 billion. The estimated gross cost of illegals to the state is $1.16 billion. The leaves the state with a net revenue of approximate $425 million. This is a fairly small amount of money in a state the size of Texas.

3) The estimated total uncompensated costs to local government (cities and counties) is $1.44 billion. The state does not reimburse the local governments for these costs. These costs are fully paid by Texans through higher sales taxes, property taxes, and special assessments to cover the costs of illegals. Texans experience a net loss much higher than the estimated $1.44 billion because the report does not include a number of factors like: higher insurance premiums to cover higher crime risks, the personal costs of property crimes by illegals (eg: costs not covered by insurance), the costs of their usage of infrastructure, and other costs.

4) There are a number of problems with the study’s assumptions, estimates, and methodology that are admitted in the report. There are also a number of things it doesn’t address and to name just a few:

a) It doesn’t address the costs to businesses and individuals from illegals’ criminal activities or the impact of money laundering activities.

c) It cannot anticipate situations like Arizona and Alabama changing their immigration enforcement laws. Both states saw attrition in their numbers of illegals after changes in their laws, and if the news reports are true, many of them moved to California and Texas. These kinds of numbers need to added to the numbers of new illegals that come to Texas each year. The most recent estimates of new illegals per year from Mexico range from 450,000 to 750,000.

d) It cannot anticipate the deep recession or other economic factors like high unemployment, the migration of around 2.5 million citizens from other states into Texas, and other factors.

Susan

@ kerner

Since my other replies to your comment #218 disappeared from the webpage, I will attempt to repeat some of them here.

1) Please reread the report. You did not interpret the report correctly and your numbers are grossly off. Your understanding of how to read the report, do basic math, and critique the methodology has led you to false conclusions.

2) The estimated GSP for the state is $17.7 billion. Included in the amount is an estimated gross production from illegals of $1.58 billion. The estimated gross cost of illegals to the state is $1.16 billion. The leaves the state with a net revenue of approximate $425 million. This is a fairly small amount of money in a state the size of Texas.

3) The estimated total uncompensated costs to local government (cities and counties) is $1.44 billion. The state does not reimburse the local governments for these costs. These costs are fully paid by Texans through higher sales taxes, property taxes, and special assessments to cover the costs of illegals. Texans experience a net loss much higher than the estimated $1.44 billion because the report does not include a number of factors like: higher insurance premiums to cover higher crime risks, the personal costs of property crimes by illegals (eg: costs not covered by insurance), the costs of their usage of infrastructure, and other costs.

4) There are a number of problems with the study’s assumptions, estimates, and methodology that are admitted in the report. There are also a number of things it doesn’t address and to name just a few:

a) It doesn’t address the costs to businesses and individuals from illegals’ criminal activities or the impact of money laundering activities.

c) It cannot anticipate situations like Arizona and Alabama changing their immigration enforcement laws. Both states saw attrition in their numbers of illegals after changes in their laws, and if the news reports are true, many of them moved to California and Texas. These kinds of numbers need to added to the numbers of new illegals that come to Texas each year. The most recent estimates of new illegals per year from Mexico range from 450,000 to 750,000.

d) It cannot anticipate the deep recession or other economic factors like high unemployment, the migration of around 2.5 million citizens from other states into Texas, and other factors.

This translates into an increased personal income to Texans of $18.5 BILLION.

I don’t necessarily agree with that number, but for the sake of discussion let’s speculate about how those $ are distributed. It is possible, and probable that virtually all $18.5 billion are distributed among those in the top 10%. There are 25 million people in Texas, so that is 2.5 million in the top 10%, so that is about $7400 per person more for each person who is in the top 10%. Of course, those at the top gain the most in these economies of scale, so it is probably more like an extra $74,000 for the top 1% and an extra $740 for the 9% just below them. But think of all the lower class people who can’t afford to shield themselves from the crime and problems and have to get in line behind illegals when they need what little public assistance they can get after the illegals gobble up huge swaths of social services. As of Nov 2011 there were 2.79 million Texans 18 and under on Medicaid. We don’t need to import poor people. We have plenty.

This translates into an increased personal income to Texans of $18.5 BILLION.

I don’t necessarily agree with that number, but for the sake of discussion let’s speculate about how those $ are distributed. It is possible, and probable that virtually all $18.5 billion are distributed among those in the top 10%. There are 25 million people in Texas, so that is 2.5 million in the top 10%, so that is about $7400 per person more for each person who is in the top 10%. Of course, those at the top gain the most in these economies of scale, so it is probably more like an extra $74,000 for the top 1% and an extra $740 for the 9% just below them. But think of all the lower class people who can’t afford to shield themselves from the crime and problems and have to get in line behind illegals when they need what little public assistance they can get after the illegals gobble up huge swaths of social services. As of Nov 2011 there were 2.79 million Texans 18 and under on Medicaid. We don’t need to import poor people. We have plenty.